Opinion
Submitted December 20, 2000.
April 2, 2001.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages based on fraud, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Sherwood, J.), dated March 28, 2000, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendant Joseph R. Laico which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to state a cause of action.
Kleinman, Saltzman Bolnick, LLP, New City, N.Y. (Garry M. Bolnick of counsel), for appellant.
Stein Stein, Haverstraw, N.Y. (Alisa Stein of counsel), for respondent.
Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, P.J., FRED T. SANTUCCI, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The complaint fails to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraud. A cause of action sounding in fraud may not be based on "statements which were promissory in nature at the time they were made and which related to future actions or conduct" (Rapanakis v. Athanasiou, 250 A.D.2d 583, 584; see, Brown v. Lockwood, 76 A.D.2d 721, 731; cf., Channel Master Corp. v. Aluminum Ltd. Sales, 4 N.Y.2d 403).
The plaintiff's only cognizable cause of action against the respondent is based on his alleged breach of a guaranty agreement, and is time-barred.
The plaintiff's remaining contention is without merit.