From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lustig v. Anywear, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 8, 1988
145 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

December 8, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Walter M. Schackman, J.).


In his first cause of action, plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached a June 5, 1984 agreement to pay sales commissions. In the second cause of action plaintiff alleges fraud in that defendant had no intention to perform the June 5, 1984 agreement. "A cause of action for fraud does not arise when the only fraud charged relates to a breach of contract" (Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v Holborn Oil Co., 108 A.D.2d 607 [1st Dept 1985], appeal dismissed 65 N.Y.2d 637). We are not persuaded, however, that plaintiff cannot plead such a cause of action and, accordingly, grant leave to replead.

Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Ross, Carro and Smith, JJ.


Summaries of

Lustig v. Anywear, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Dec 8, 1988
145 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Lustig v. Anywear, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARC LUSTIG, Respondent, v. ANYWEAR, INC., Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 8, 1988

Citations

145 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Sudul v. Computer Outsourcing Services

However, New York's Court of Appeals has held that a contracting party can be held liable for fraud when, at…

El Toro Grp. v. Bareburger Grp.

Defendants' contention that they did not have to establish a separate bank account for each of the Companies'…