From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

New York City Health v. St. Barnabas Comm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 25, 2005
22 A.D.3d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Summary

modifying by denying motion to strike

Summary of this case from Mattia v. Vill. of Pittsford Planning & Zoning Bd. of Appeals

Opinion

6554.

October 25, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Faviola A. Soto, J.), entered June 7, 2004, which granted plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's third counterclaim sounding in fraud and to strike certain counterclaim paragraphs, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, the motion denied insofar as it seeks to strike counterclaim paragraphs 36, 37, 43-48, and 51-52, those paragraphs reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Garfunkel, Wild Travis, P.C., Great Neck (Andrew L. Zwerling of counsel), for appellant.

Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Ann E. Scherzer of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Saxe and Williams, JJ.


The elements of a fraud claim must be pleaded with particularity (CPLR 3016 [b]). Mere allegations of fraudulent intent are insufficient ( Salles v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 300 AD2d 226, 235). The third counterclaim, consisting simply of a conclusory narrative alleging, without reference to any specific instance, that plaintiff administered a defective billing system, failed to satisfy this standard.

A motion to strike scandalous or prejudicial material from a pleading ( see CPLR 3024 [b]) will be denied if the allegations are relevant to a cause of action ( see e.g. Bristol Harbour Assoc. v. Home Ins. Co., 244 AD2d 885). The disputed paragraphs are, to the extent indicated, relevant to the still viable breach of contract and unjust enrichment counterclaims.


Summaries of

New York City Health v. St. Barnabas Comm

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 25, 2005
22 A.D.3d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

modifying by denying motion to strike

Summary of this case from Mattia v. Vill. of Pittsford Planning & Zoning Bd. of Appeals

modifying by denying motion to strike

Summary of this case from Chiapperini v. Gander Mountain Co.
Case details for

New York City Health v. St. Barnabas Comm

Case Details

Full title:NEW YORK CITY HEALTH AND HOSPITALS CORPORATION, Respondent, v. ST…

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

Date published: Oct 25, 2005

Citations

22 A.D.3d 391 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 7835
802 N.Y.S.2d 363

Citing Cases

Wittels v. Sanford

Supreme Court erred in granting petitioner's motion to strike portions of respondents' already sealed cross…

White & Case LLP v. Shipman Assocs.

"A motion to strike scandalous or prejudicial material from a pleading ... will be denied if the allegations…