Opinion
February 8, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the defendants are awarded one bill of costs.
The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of a judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).
The court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the plaintiff's second, third, and fourth causes of action, as he failed to present evidentiary proof in admissible form to support the claim that the defendant car dealership engaged in deceptive practices prohibited by General Business Law § 349 (a) (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562; see generally, Genesco Entertainment v Koch, 593 F. Supp. 743; Quail Ridge Assocs. v Chemical Bank, 162 A.D.2d 917; Goldberg v Manhattan Ford Lincoln-Mercury, 129 Misc.2d 123). Similarly, the proof offered by the plaintiff was insufficient to establish the existence of triable issues of fact regarding his first cause of action to recover damages for fraud in the inducement of the contract. The plaintiff's seventh cause of action to recover damages for conversion of his $500 deposit was properly dismissed, as it was predicated upon a breach of the terms of the contract (see, 23 N.Y. Jur 2d, Conversion, §§ 12, 24; Peters Griffin Woodward v WCSC, Inc., 88 A.D.2d 883). Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.