In opposing defendants' motion, however, plaintiff did not identify any conduct by defendant that discouraged her from repairing or replacing the roof during the two-year period (see Snyder v Allstate Ins. Co., 70 AD3d 670, 671 [2d Dept 2010], lv denied in part and dismissed in part 17 NY3d 748 [2011], rearg denied 17 NY3d 917 [2011]). Rather, by paying her the actual cash value of the roof damage, defendant enabled plaintiff to commence the repair or rebuilding process during the two-year period (see Lovett v Allstate Ins. Co., 86 AD2d 545, 546 [1st Dept 1982], affd 64 NY2d 1124 [1985]; Bartholomew v Sterling Ins. Co., 34 AD3d 1157, 1159 [3d Dept 2006]; Enright, 295 AD2d at 981). Because she did not, Supreme Court properly determined that the insurance policy entitled her only to the actual cash value of the roof damage (see D.R. Watson Holdings, LLC v Caliber One Indem. Co., 15 AD3d 969, 969 [4th Dept 2005], lv dismissed 4 NY3d 882 [2005], lv dismissed 5 NY3d 842 [2005]; Harrington v Amica Mut. Ins. Co., 223 AD2d 222, 228 [4th Dept 1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]).

Collateral vacatur is tantamount to an appeal from one judge to a subsequent judge for a review of the first order, wherein the subsequent judge arrogates to himself or herself the power of appellate review. ( Platt v. New York SBR Co, 170 NY 451 Lovett v. Allstate Ins Co, 86 AD2d 545 [1st Dept 1982] aff'd 64 NY2d 1124; George

Plaintiffs allege that Toys "R" Us representatives informed them, after they entered into the Agreement, "that sales could not be expected to be better because Toys 'R' Us' primary demographic was not the more mature collectors of such toys but was actually 'mothers buying for 6 and 7 year olds'" (Complaint ¶ 19 [b]), and that Toys "R" Us would use the same manufacturer that Winston originally used to make the figures ( id., ¶ 19 [c]). It is plaintiffs' burden to provide sufficient particularized allegations of all the essential elements of fraud, including a false statement ( Lovett v. Allstate Ins. Co., 86 AD2d 545, 546 [1st Dept 1982] ["In proving an allegation of fraud, an essential element is that the representation must have been false when it was made"], affd 64 NY2d 1124). Plaintiffs fail to plead in sufficient detail how the above representations are false.