Summary
dismissing Plaintiff's conspiracy claim for failing to allege "fact from which it could be inferred that [Defendants] had agreed or entered into an understanding with the other defendant . . . to cooperate in any fraudulent scheme."
Summary of this case from Gorham-Dimaggio v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.Opinion
September 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.).
Plaintiffs' verified complaint alleges, inter alia, that defendants fraudulently misrepresented facts with respect to UPC's profitability, in order to induce plaintiffs to invest $750,000 in UPC. The Court properly dismissed the first cause of action, sounding in fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud, as against the moving defendants, except Heo Peh Lee. While Lee was alleged to have made false representations to plaintiffs on various occasions, the verified complaint failed to satisfy the specificity and particularity requirements of CPLR 3013 and 3016 (b) as to the other moving defendants, since there were no factual allegations alleging that these defendants had made any fraudulent representations to plaintiff or allegations of fact from which it could be inferred that they had agreed or entered into an understanding with the other defendant (against which particular acts of fraud were alleged) to cooperate in any fraudulent scheme. (National Westminster Bank v. Weksel, 124 A.D.2d 144, 147, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 604; Ferguson v. Meridian Distrib. Servs., 155 A.D.2d 642.)
Plaintiffs' second cause of action, alleging a claim for money had and received, was also properly dismissed, since they failed to allege receipt of moneys by the moving defendants (Steinberg v. Guild, 22 A.D.2d 775, affd 16 N.Y.2d 791, mot to amend remittur granted 16 N.Y.2d 960).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Milonas and Kupferman, JJ.