Opinion
March 7, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J.).
Plaintiff failed to state a cause of action against defendants for inducing its attorneys to breach their fiduciary duty, as the pleading did not state in detail the circumstances constituting the wrong, as required by CPLR 3016 (b) ( see, Holoness Realty Corp. v New York Prop. Ins. Underwriting Assn., 75 A.D.2d 569, 570). We also note that all the allegations concerning the inducement of that breach are pleaded "upon information and belief", without disclosing the source of information that forms the basis of that belief ( see, Belco Petroleum Corp. v AIG Oil Rig, 164 A.D.2d 583, 598-599).
Plaintiff's third cause of action, for prima facie tort, was properly dismissed for failure to plead special damages, a necessary element of the tort ( see, Freihofer v Hearst Corp., 65 N.Y.2d 135, 143). If that cause of action were read as one for interference with a contractual relationship, it would be insufficient.
The IAS Court properly dismissed plaintiff's cause of action for fraud. The alleged non-disclosures do not constitute fraud since there was no duty to speak under the circumstances ( see, Jolly King Rest. v Hershey Chan Realty, 214 A.D.2d 422). As to the alleged false utterances, plaintiff has neither shown how it relied to its detriment on the statements nor alleged any specific damages which were proximately caused by the false utterances ( see, Feldman v Grant, 213 A.D.2d 340, 341, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 701).
Although plaintiff asserted a claim for civil conspiracy, New York does not recognize such a tort ( see, MBF Clearing Corp. v Shine, 212 A.D.2d 478, 479).
Finally, plaintiff has not asserted any reason why defendant Chiappone should be held personally liable, since the only basis of a claim against him is his status as a partner in defendant law firm, which he did not join until after the alleged wrongs were already committed ( see, C.E. Hooper, Inc. v Perlberg, Monness, Williams Sidel, 72 A.D.2d 687, appeal dismissed 49 N.Y.2d 736; Benvenuto v Taubman, 690 F. Supp. 149, 152). Plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Ross and Williams, JJ.