BROWN v. WOLF GROUP INTEGRATED COMMUNICATIONS LTD

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Scott W. BROWN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WOLF GROUP INTEGRATED COMMUNICATIONS, LTD., et al., Defendants-Respondents.

Decided: November 15, 2005

SAXE, J.P., MARLOW, NARDELLI, GONZALEZ, SWEENY, JJ. M. Bradford Randolph, New York, for appellant. Todtman, Nachamie, Spizz & Johns, P.C., New York (Mathew E. Hoffman of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter B. Tolub, J.), entered October 12, 2004, which granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

While we reject defendants' jurisdictional claim that they were not properly served, since it appears that the party who accepted process was fully authorized to do so, the complaint, alleging fraud, was nonetheless properly dismissed, for failure to state a cause of action.   Plaintiff's claim was not pleaded with the particularity mandated by CPLR 3016(b).  Although plaintiff alleged that defendants “deliberately misrepresented the fact that an agreement had been reached,” he failed to specify how defendants misrepresented that fact, i.e., the words or actions used to “deceive” him and “deprive him of the benefit of his compensation package” (see J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v. Stavitsky, 18 A.D.3d 389, 795 N.Y.S.2d 569 [2005];  cf. Channel Master v. Aluminum Ltd. Sales, Inc., 4 N.Y.2d 403, 176 N.Y.S.2d 259, 151 N.E.2d 833 [1958] ).   Moreover, plaintiff has alleged no more than that defendants did not intend to honor their contract, which is insufficient to state a claim for fraud (see Bencivenga & Co. v. Phyfe, 210 A.D.2d 22, 619 N.Y.S.2d 33 [1994] ).

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them unavailing.