Summary
dismissing fraud claim where plaintiff "did not set forth in detail the circumstances constituting the wrong" and dismissing conversion claim where plaintiff "failed to allege any specific and identifiable property converted by the defendant"
Summary of this case from Hodge v. HodgeOpinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, the defendants' motion is granted, the first and fourth causes of action insofar as they are asserted against Broadwall Management Corp. and Andrew Ratner are dismissed, and the plaintiff's demands for punitive damages in connection with the first, third, and fourth causes of action are stricken.
The plaintiff's cause of action for fraud did not allege the essential elements of a fraud claim and did not set forth in detail the circumstances constituting the wrong. Thus, the fourth cause of action should have been dismissed (see, CPLR 3016 [b]; Barclay Arms v. Barclay Arms Assocs., 74 N.Y.2d 644).
The plaintiff's cause of action for conversion failed to allege any specific and identifiable property converted by the defendants. Thus, the first cause of action should have been dismissed as well (see, United Sys. Assocs. v. Norstar Bank Upstate N.Y., 171 A.D.2d 922; Matzan v. Eastman Kodak Co., 134 A.D.2d 863; Independence Discount Corp. v. Bressner, 47 A.D.2d 756).
The plaintiff's demand for punitive damages in connection with the third cause of action for breach of contract must also be stricken (see, Cross v. Zyburo, 185 A.D.2d 967). We do not address the propriety of the plaintiff's demand for punitive damages in connection with its fifth cause of action because that issue was not raised by the defendants. Balletta, J.P., Thompson, Santucci, Altman and Hart, JJ., concur.