Opinion
April 4, 2000.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered November 17, 1999, which denied defendants-appellants' motion to dismiss the second, third and fourth causes of action against them pursuant to CPLR 3211, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Gerald Kahn, for Plaintiff-Respondent.
William A. Frank, for Defendants-Appellants.
SULLIVAN, P.J., NARDELLI, TOM, MAZZARELLI, WALLACH, JJ.
Taking the allegations of the complaint as true and resolving all inferences reasonably flowing from those allegations in the pleader's favor, as we must on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action pursuant to CPLR 3211 (see, Cron v. Hargro Fabrics, Inc., 91 N.Y.2d 362, 366), we conclude, as did the motion court, that plaintiff's second and third causes of action for fraudulent concealment and fraudulent misrepresentation sufficiently state the essential elements of the claims (see, Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc., 88 N.Y.2d 413, 421; Swersky v. Dreyer and Traub, 219 A.D.2d 321, 326) and adequately apprise defendants of "the circumstances constituting the wrong", as required by CPLR 3016(b) (see, Lanzi v. Brooks, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 780; Bernstein v. Kelso Co., Inc., 231 A.D.2d 314, 320).
We have considered appellants' remaining arguments, including those pertaining to the denial of that branch of their motion seeking to dismiss plaintiff's fraud causes and its fourth cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty as time-barred, and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.