From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Masada Universal Corp. v. Goodman System Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1986
121 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

June 16, 1986


Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Edelstein, J.).

Order affirmed, with costs.

Special Term erred in considering the documentary evidence submitted in support of the motion to dismiss. The respondents first raised the documentary evidence defense (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]) in the motion to dismiss after service of the answer to the third-party complaint, and the defense was, therefore, waived (see, CPLR 3211 [e]). Further, Special Term did not give the parties adequate notice pursuant to CPLR 3211 (c) that the motion had been converted to one for summary judgment (see, Rich v Lefkovits, 56 N.Y.2d 276, 281), and such evidence was therefore not properly before Special Term on the motion to dismiss.

Nevertheless, we conclude that the subject causes of action were properly dismissed. "[T]he sole criterion is whether the pleading states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheimer v. Ginzburg, 43 N.Y.2d 268, 275). The pleadings here, however, do not satisfy this test for legal sufficiency. The first two causes of action, both of which are based in fraud, fail to allege specifically the content of the allegedly false representations, the fraudulent intent with which these representations were made, or any injury suffered as a proximate result of the fraudulent representations (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; cf. Glassman v. Catli, 111 A.D.2d 744, 745-746). Thus, the third-party complaint clearly fails to set out a viable cause of action sounding in fraud. The third, fifth, and sixth causes of action similarly fail to state cognizable claims for breach of fiduciary duty since they do not allege the existence of a fiduciary obligation on the part of the movants. Finally, the fourth cause of action, insofar as it merely states an alternative claim for relief on the facts and legal theories alleged in the first and third causes of action, was also properly dismissed. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Masada Universal Corp. v. Goodman System Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 16, 1986
121 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Masada Universal Corp. v. Goodman System Co.

Case Details

Full title:MASADA UNIVERSAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff and Third-Party…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 16, 1986

Citations

121 A.D.2d 518 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Shovak v. Commercial Bank

The Supreme Court should also have granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to dismiss the…

New York Cong. Nursing Ctr. v. Gilchrist

However, the affirmation in support of the cross motion is titled, "Affirmation in Support of Cross Motion…