Opinion
November 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7). The plaintiff's allegations fall far short of pleading a cognizable claim for fraudulent inducement of employment (cf., Backer v Lewit, 180 A.D.2d 134; cf., Stewart v Jackson Nash, 976 F.2d 86; cf., Stark v Sbarro, Inc., US Dist Ct, ED NY, June 1, 1994, Platt, J.; see also, CPLR 3016 [b]). Further, to the extent that the third cause of action asserts a theory of recovery based upon negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff has wholly failed to allege facts establishing the existence of a fiduciary duty owed to him by the defendants (see, White v Guarente, 43 N.Y.2d 356, 362-363; see also, Stewart v Jackson Nash, supra, at 90).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Ritter, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Krausman, JJ., concur.