CANGRO v. MARANGOS (2009)

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered January 22, 2008, which denied plaintiff's motion for an order “granting compensatory and punitive damages” and setting a trial date, and granted defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The allegations in the complaint and in plaintiff's affidavit constitute “bare legal conclusions” (see Caniglia v. Chicago Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate, 204 A.D.2d 233, 233-234, 612 N.Y.S.2d 146 [1994] ).   Plaintiff's fraud claims are not pleaded with the requisite particularity (CPLR 3016[b] ).  Her defamation claims fail because the alleged offending statements were made in the context of a judicial proceeding to which they were directly related (see Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v. Margrabe, 38 A.D.3d 163, 174-176, 828 N.Y.S.2d 315 [2007] ).