Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Abdus Shahid, appellant, v. Martin A. Bienstock, respondent.
Argued—June 3, 2022
DECISION & ORDER
In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Debra Silber, J), dated April 18, 2019. The order granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for fraud against the defendant, Martin A. Bienstock, a New York City Marshall, alleging that the defendant fabricated a judgment against him in the amount of $328,797.86, and enforced that judgment. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. In an order dated April 18, 2019, the Supreme Court granted the motion, and the plaintiff appeals.
“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” (Introna v Huntington Learning Ctrs., Inc., 78 AD3d 896, 898; see New York Univ. v. Continental Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 318; Trump Vil. Section 4, Inc. v. Vilensky, 202 AD3d 865, 865–866).
The defendant established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint. The defendant adduced evidence that he received executions issued by an attorney for the New York City Department of Finance based upon a series of final orders rendered against the plaintiff by the New York City Environmental Control Board (hereinafter ECB) docketed in the Civil Court of the City of New York. Pursuant to New York City Charter § 1049–a(d)(1)(g), final orders of the ECB constitute judgments that may be enforced without court proceedings. Further, in support of his motion, the defendant submitted an affidavit stating that he attempted to levy the judgments against the plaintiff's bank accounts and recovered no funds. In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., RIVERA, CHAMBERS and DOWLING, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Maria T. Fasulo
Clerk of the Court
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2019–05799 (Index No. 2881 /18)
Decided: September 28, 2022
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)