From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Chiaramonte v. Boxer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 7, 1986
122 A.D.2d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

July 7, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Golden, J.).


Order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which denied those branches of the appellants' separate motions which were to dismiss the fifth cause of action insofar as that cause of action is asserted against them and substituting therefor a provision granting those branches of the appellants' motions. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

On this appeal, the appellants challenge the sufficiency of the first, second and fifth causes of action of the complaint. The first and second causes of action, which allege legal malpractice and fraud in violation of Judiciary Law § 487, respectively, state cognizable causes of action and are adequately pleaded (see, Jered Contr. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.2d 187; Foley v D'Agostino, 21 A.D.2d 60).

However, the fifth cause of action alleges only a hybrid claim of civil conspiracy. It is well settled that there is no independent tort of civil conspiracy recognized in this State (Burns Jackson Miller Summit Spitzer v Lindner, 88 A.D.2d 50, affd 59 N.Y.2d 314). Consequently, the fifth cause of action must be dismissed as against the appellants.

The parties' other contentions are without merit. Weinstein, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Chiaramonte v. Boxer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 7, 1986
122 A.D.2d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Chiaramonte v. Boxer

Case Details

Full title:DIANE CHIARAMONTE, Respondent, v. JONATHAN BOXER, Defendant, and BOXER…

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

Date published: Jul 7, 1986

Citations

122 A.D.2d 13 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Seeds v. Seeds

the Eastern Savings Bank, by any of its officers or employees, made a misrepresentation of fact (see,…

Schlotthauer v. Sanders

gh plaintiff alleges intentional and malicious action by the defendant Berlin, he does not allege, nor does…