From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hudson v. Greenwich I Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 2, 1996
226 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Summary

granting motion to dismiss fraud claim where plaintiff alleged that "defendant never intended to carry out its promises contained in a contract for renovation of the building"

Summary of this case from EQT Infrastructure Ltd. v. Smith

Opinion

April 2, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).


Plaintiff alleged in his cause of action for fraud that defendant never intended to carry out its promises contained in a contract for renovation of the building in which plaintiff resides. The IAS Court correctly granted defendant's motion to dismiss that cause of action since "[a] contract action may not be converted into one for fraud by the mere additional allegation that the contracting party did not intend to meet his contractual obligation" ( Comtomark, Inc. v. Satellite Communications Network, 116 A.D.2d 499, 500; Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assur. Socy., 83 N.Y.2d 603, 614; see, Briefstein v. Rotondo Constr. Co., 8 A.D.2d 349). Plaintiff's affidavit in opposition to the motion, alleging that defendant did not intend to perform in accordance with a set of building plans that was incorporated by reference in the contract, did not convert plaintiff's breach of contract claim into one for fraud.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.


Summaries of

Hudson v. Greenwich I Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 2, 1996
226 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

granting motion to dismiss fraud claim where plaintiff alleged that "defendant never intended to carry out its promises contained in a contract for renovation of the building"

Summary of this case from EQT Infrastructure Ltd. v. Smith
Case details for

Hudson v. Greenwich I Associates

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL HUDSON, Appellant, v. GREENWICH I ASSOCIATES, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Apr 2, 1996

Citations

226 A.D.2d 119 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
640 N.Y.S.2d 46

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Hochberg

Any noncompliance by defendants with SEC rule 144 was immaterial to the agreement, which reflected…

STANGEL v. ZHI DAN CHEN

Thus, the claims based upon fraud, fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation and rescission cannot…