Opinion
January 12, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Benson, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, and the amended complaint is dismissed as against the defendant Frank Porco.
The plaintiff's cause of action alleging fraud does not sufficiently comply with the requirements of particularity set forth in CPLR 3016 (b). Bare allegations of fraud without any allegation of the details constituting the wrong are clearly insufficient to sustain such a cause of action (see, Lapis Enters. v. International Blimpie Corp., 84 A.D.2d 286; Gill v Caribbean Home Remodeling Co., 73 A.D.2d 609). Therefore, the amended complaint must be dismissed as against the defendant Frank Porco. Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.