Lanzi v. Brooks
| Decision Date | 15 December 1977 |
| Citation | 43 N.Y.2d 778,402 N.Y.S.2d 384,373 N.E.2d 278 |
| Parties | , 373 N.E.2d 278 Joseph LANZI, Appellant, v. Arthur BROOKS, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision of that court, with an additional observation. Plaintiff's complaint did not allege either a present intent not to carry out the promises of future action, or, in fact, any factual assertions from which this conclusion can be drawn, and thus failed to state a cause of action for fraud based on a misstatement of future intentions (cf. Sabo v. Delman, 3 N.Y.2d 155, 164 N.Y.S.2d 714, 143 N.E.2d 906). This failure to allege a necessary element of the cause of action, however, is not to be confused with the requirement of CPLR 3016 (subd. (b)) that in an action for fraud, "the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail". This provision requires only that the misconduct complained of be set forth in sufficient detail to clearly inform a defendant with respect to the incidents complained of and is not to be interpreted so strictly as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be "impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud" (Jered Contr. Corp. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 22 N.Y.2d 187, 194, 292 N.Y.S.2d 98, 104, 239 N.E.2d 197, 201).
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giuliano v. Everything Yogurt, Inc., No. CV-92-1728.
...actionable on the grounds of fraud.") (citing Adams v. Clark, 239 N.Y. 403, 410, 146 N.E. 642, 644 (1925)), aff'd, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 402 N.Y.S.2d 384, 373 N.E.2d 278 (1977); Hotel Constructors, Inc. v. Seagrave Corp., 574 F.Supp. 384, 387 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (citing Sabo v. Delman 3 N.Y.2d 155, 160......
-
Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa
...action in reliance thereon. See Lanzi v. Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 1057, 388 N.Y.S.2d 946, 948 (3d Dept.1976), aff'd, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 402 N.Y.S.2d 384, 373 N.E.2d 278 (N.Y.1977). John has failed to proffer a credible explanation as to how he could have reasonably relied upon Daniel's alleged materia......
-
Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa
...also that he was justified in taking action in reliance thereon. See Lanzi v. Brooks, 388 N.Y.S.2d 946, 948 (3d Dept.1976), aff'd, 43 N.Y.2d 778 (N.Y.1977). John has failed to proffer a credible explanation as to how he could have reasonably relied upon Daniel's alleged material In his depo......
-
Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell
...S.Ct. 1896, 77 L.Ed.2d 285 (1983), quoting Lanzi v. Brooks, 54 A.D.2d 1057, 388 N.Y.S.2d 946 (3d Dep't 1976), aff'd 43 N.Y.2d 778, 373 N.E.2d 278, 402 N.Y.S.2d 384 (1977) ("under New York law, any inference drawn from the fact that the expectation did not occur is not sufficient to sustain ......