From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Keefe v. Citibank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 2005
15 A.D.3d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)

Opinion

5383

February 17, 2005.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marilyn Shafer, J.), entered June 24, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendant HG 79th Street's motion seeking summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Before: Buckley, P.J., Saxe, Williams and Sweeny, JJ., concur.


The cause of action for fraud sufficiently apprised HG 79th Street of the substance of the allegations (CPLR 3016 [b]; Bernstein v. Kelso Co., 231 AD2d 314, 320). HG 79th Street's argument that as a "shareholder" of 157 West 79th Street Corporation, it cannot be held liable for the independent acts of the board or individual directors, is belied by the record wherein it does not deny the allegation that it was an officer of the corporation, which status may well incur liability ( Polonetsky v. Better Homes Depot, 97 NY2d 46).


Summaries of

O'Keefe v. Citibank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 17, 2005
15 A.D.3d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
Case details for

O'Keefe v. Citibank

Case Details

Full title:LIZBETH O'KEEFE, Respondent, v. CITIBANK, N.A., et al., Defendants, and HG…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 2005

Citations

15 A.D.3d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)
789 N.Y.S.2d 425

Citing Cases

Sprung v. Glenn Horowitz Bookseller

Rather, and in such a case, "a plaintiff need only provide detail to inform defendants of the substance of…