160 A.D.2d 785 (1990)

Edward Moss et al., Appellants, v. Allen C. Moche, Respondent, et al., Defendants

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

April 9, 1990

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the allegations of the complaint fail to set forth the requisite elements of fraud, malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty (see, CPLR 3013; see, e.g., Barclay Arms v Barclay Arms Assocs., 74 N.Y.2d 644; Zambito v Ryan, 125 A.D.2d 462; Glatzer v Scappatura, 99 A.D.2d 505). Moreover, the claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty have not been pleaded with the factual detail required by statute (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; see, e.g., Elsky v KM Ins. Brokers, 139 A.D.2d 691; Appel v Ford Motor Co., 111 A.D.2d 731; Gould v Schroder Bank & Trust Co., 78 A.D.2d 870). Accordingly, the dismissal of the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) was appropriate.

Additionally, inasmuch as the plaintiffs did not request leave to replead, did not submit evidence demonstrating the merit of their claims, and did not submit a proposed amended pleading, they are not entitled to permission to serve an amended complaint (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Bardere v Zafir, 63 N.Y.2d 850; Zigabarra v Falk, 143 A.D.2d 901; Scaccia v Mack Trucks, 83 A.D.2d 903).


1000 Characters Remaining reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases