Jaro Construction Corp. v. Weiner

Full title: JARO CONSTRUCTION CORP., Appellant, v. ROBERT L. WEINER et al., Respondents

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

Date published: Nov 21, 1994

209 A.D.2d 585 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

619 N.Y.S.2d 655

Opinion

November 21, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff failed to supply any details as to how the alleged fraud was perpetrated, as required by CPLR 3016 (b). Accordingly, because the complaint contained nothing but conclusory assertions of fraud without any facts to support a finding that any fraudulent act was committed, the court properly dismissed the complaint for failing to state a cause of action (see, Penna v. Caratozzolo, 131 A.D.2d 738; Elsky v. KM Ins. Brokers, 139 A.D.2d 691). The plaintiff's contention that it should be granted leave to replead is without merit since it failed to establish by extrinsic evidence that by repleading it would be able to state a cause of action (see, Penna v Caratozzolo, supra). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.