From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hoffman v. Playmates of Miami, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 27, 1964
22 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Opinion

October 27, 1964


Order, entered May 28, 1964, denying defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [a], par. 7) to dismiss the second cause of action in the complaint on the ground that it fails to state a cause of action, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $30 costs and disbursements to defendants-appellants against plaintiff-respondent, and the motion granted, with $10 costs. Neither the allegations of the complaint nor the supporting affidavit submitted pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. [c]) establish that the alleged representation of expectation with respect to a future event was then known to be false. The falsity is inferred solely from the failure of the event to occur. This is not enough. (See 24 N.Y. Jur., Fraud and Deceit, §§ 50-57, but especially § 57.)

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Rabin, Eager and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Hoffman v. Playmates of Miami, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 27, 1964
22 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)
Case details for

Hoffman v. Playmates of Miami, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:DIANE HOFFMAN, Respondent, v. PLAYMATES OF MIAMI, INC., et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 27, 1964

Citations

22 A.D.2d 674 (N.Y. App. Div. 1964)

Citing Cases

Sound Video Unlimited, Inc. v. Video Shack

The defendants correctly note that fraud cannot be inferred solely from the failure of an event to occur. See…