Opinion
April 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Facelle, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The defendants' contentions that they are entitled to summary judgment because the plaintiff failed to plead fraud with specificity is without merit, as the alleged insufficiency of a pleading is not a proper basis for a summary judgment motion (see, Gee v Gee, 113 A.D.2d 736). In any event, we find that the pleading was sufficient.
The defendants' further claim that the complaint did not state a cause of action against them is also without merit (see, Bowles v Errico, 163 A.D.2d 771; Brown v Kimmel, 68 A.D.2d 896; County of Dutchess v Dutchess Sanitation Servs., 86 A.D.2d 884). Furthermore, because a question of fact exists as to the extent of the services the plaintiff's attorney performed for the defendants, it cannot be said, at this point, that the plaintiff ratified the allegedly fraudulent conveyance, nor that the plaintiff's attorney should be disqualified (see, Frias v Frias, 155 A.D.2d 585). Similarly, a question of fact exists as to whether there was a conveyance from the defendant Frank J. Crisona to the defendant Joan Crisona.
Finally, contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the court did not err in denying its motion for summary judgment. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and Lawrence, JJ., concur.