Opinion
November 21, 1967
Order entered July 31, 1967, herein appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency is granted. The complaint contains two causes of action. In the first cause plaintiff seeks rescission of certain agreements, a return of fees paid and a return to the status quo antedating any business relationship between the parties. Plaintiff claims there was a misrepresentation of facts, without intent to defraud, which caused a false or mistaken impression on the part of plaintiff and as a result he entered certain agreements, the details of which were not specified. Aside from the fact that no adequate ground for equity intervention is set forth and we are left to speculate as to the said agreements, a return to the status quo is clearly impossible under the facts of this case. The second cause sounds in fraud because of certain alleged misrepresentations by defendant to plaintiff. In such cause plaintiff seeks a return of fees paid to defendant, of fees paid to patent attorneys and $100,000 in punitive damages. Plaintiff fails to allege or demonstrate how such misrepresentations, assuming they were made, caused damage to plaintiff or were in any way responsible for rejection of the patent sought. Nor is it alleged and particularized what work or letters were false and misleading and which resulted in damage to plaintiff. The complaint is clearly insufficient (CPLR 3211).
Concur — Stevens, J.P., Steuer, Capozzoli, McNally and McGivern, JJ.