Opinion
May 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Kutner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The appellants argue on appeal that the complaint failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraud. However, reviewing the complaint as a whole (see, Home Reporter v Brooklyn Spectator, 34 A.D.2d 956), including supporting affidavits (see, Rotanelli v. Madden, 172 A.D.2d 815), taking all the allegations as true, and giving the benefit of every inference to the pleader (see, Sanders v. Winship, 57 N.Y.2d 391; Green v. Leibowitz, 118 A.D.2d 756), we are satisfied that the complaint adequately states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud. Further, the complaint contains sufficient details to satisfy the requirement of CPLR 3016 (b) (see, Lanzi v. Brooks, 43 N.Y.2d 778).
In addition the record raises factual issues as to when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged fraud (see, Azoy v. Fowler, 57 A.D.2d 541; Del Vecchio v. Nassau County, 118 A.D.2d 615). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion insofar as it was to dismiss the complaint as time-barred. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.