Summary
granting the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's fraud claims against the city on the basis, inter alia, that "[t]he alleged misrepresentations upon which the plaintiff [said] she relied [were] predicated upon the doing of acts beyond scope of the authority of the officials who, plaintiff claims, made them."
Summary of this case from PHL Variable Ins. Co. v. Town of Oyster BayOpinion
Submitted December 13, 1935
Decided January 8, 1936
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
Henry E. Stohldreier and Walter W. Westall for appellant.
William R. Condit, Corporation Counsel ( Samuel Faile of counsel), for respondent.
Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: CRANE, Ch. J., LEHMAN, O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ.