CPLR R. 3016 Fraud Not Pled With Particularity

CPLR R. 3016 Particularity in specific actions

Cangro v Marangos, 2009 NY Slip Op 02661(App. Div., 1st, 2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.),
entered January 22, 2008, which denied plaintiff's motion for an order
"granting compensatory and punitive damages" and setting a trial date,
and granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without

The allegations in the complaint and in plaintiff's affidavit constitute "bare legal conclusions" (see Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate,
204 AD2d 233, 233-234 [1994]). Plaintiff's fraud claims are not pleaded
with the requisite particularity (CPLR 3016[b])
. Her defamation claims
fail because the alleged offending statements were made in the context
of a judicial proceeding to which they were directly

related (see Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v Margrabe, 38 AD3d 163, 174-176 [2007]).

The bold is mine.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: