| Sareen v Sareen |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04496 [51 AD3d 765] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Vikas Sareen, Appellant, v Reema Sareen et al.,Respondents, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Steven F. Pugliese, New York, N.Y., for respondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order ofthe Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), dated May 21, 2007, which granted that branchof the motion of the defendants Reema Sareen, Rajiv K. Grover, and Dena Grover which was todismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against them pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), and (2) anorder of the same court dated July 19, 2007, which denied his separate motions for leave toreargue and renew.
Ordered that the order dated May 21, 2007, is affirmed; and it is further,
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order dated July 19, 2007, as denied theplaintiff's motion for leave to reargue is dismissed, on the ground that no appeal lies from anorder denying reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated July 19, 2007, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for fraud from his estranged wife, Reema Sareen, andher family, on the ground that, in inducing him to marry her, they claimed that she had a college[*2]degree, when she did not. The plaintiff's complaint failed tostate a cause of action, since he failed to plead that he justifiably relied upon these allegedmisrepresentations in determining whether to enter into the marriage (see ValassisCommunications v Weimer, 304 AD2d 448 [2003]).
The plaintiff's claim that he asserted a cause of action sounding in intentional infliction ofemotional distress is without merit. New York does not recognize a cause of action to recoverdamages for intentional infliction of emotional distress between spouses (see Xiao Yang Chen v Fischer, 6 NY3d94, 100, n 2 [2005]; Weicker v Weicker, 22 NY2d 8 [1968]; Nacson vSemmel, 292 AD2d 432 [2002]). Further, the plaintiff does not allege any conduct on thepart of the respondents which could constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress (seeHowell v New York Post Co., 81 NY2d 115, 121 [1993]; Scarfone v Village of Ossining, 23 AD3d 540 [2005]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v LongIs. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 388 [1987]). Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ.,concur.