Opinion
Submitted November 23, 1999
December 20, 1999
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated October 20, 1998, as granted that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, and denied their cross application pursuant to CPLR 3025(b) for leave to amend the complaint "for the purpose of stating a cause of action".
Faust Rabbach Oppenheim, LLP, New York, N.Y. (David J. Rabbach, Lewis M. Lefkowitz, and Lyat Eyal of counsel), for appellants.
Norman Paul Weiss, P.C., Huntington Station, N.Y. (Andrea Seychett Schear of counsel), for respondents.
SONDRA MILLER, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, LEO F. McGINITY and NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly dismissed the complaint, as it failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraud (see, Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney, 88 N.Y.2d 413 ; Cohen v. Cerier, 243 A.D.2d 670 ), constructive fraud (see, United Safety of Am. v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., 213 A.D.2d 283 ), or negligent misrepresentation (see, Ossining Union Free School Dist. v. Anderson LaRocca Anderson, 73 N.Y.2d 417 ).
The plaintiffs' contention that the Supreme Court erred in denying their cross application for leave to amend the complaint "for the purpose of stating a cause of action" is without merit (see,Morgan v. Prospect Park Assocs. Holdings, 251 A.D.2d 306 ).
S. MILLER, J.P., O'BRIEN, McGINITY, and SMITH, JJ., concur.