Opinion
November 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Williams, J.).
Ordered that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Although we agree with the appellant's contention that the instant proceeding is beyond the scope of CPLR article 77 (see, Gregory v Wilkes, 26 Misc.2d 641, 642; see also, Matter of Reilly, 17 Misc.2d 1077, affd 3 A.D.2d 1001), we reject her argument that as a result, the proceeding must be dismissed. Where a court has obtained jurisdiction over the parties, a civil judicial proceeding ought not to be dismissed solely because it is not brought in the proper form, but the court should make whatever order is required for its proper prosecution (see, CPLR 103 [c]; see also, Matter of O'Shea, 28 A.D.2d 977; Matter of Phalen v Theatrical Protective Union No. 1., 22 N.Y.2d 34; Matter of Lakeland Water Dist. v Onondaga County Water Auth., 23 N.Y.2d 801).
We find unpersuasive the appellant's contention that the pleading deficiencies of the petition require its dismissal. The allegations set forth in the petition adequately established the existence of a cause of action to recover damages for fraud (see, Matter of Gordon v Bialystoker Ctr. Bikur Cholim, 45 N.Y.2d 692, 698; Cowee v Cornell, 75 N.Y. 91, 99-100; Matter of Paul, 105 A.D.2d 928; see also, Jered Contr. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.2d 187).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.