MOSS v. MOCHE

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).