| Glezelis v Halkiopoulos |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 02747 [61 AD3d 633] |
| April 7, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Ioannis John Glezelis, Also Known as Ioannis Glezelis, AlsoKnown as John Glezelis, Appellant, v Nicole Halkiopoulos, Also Known as NicoleHalkiopoulos Tzeremes, Also Known as Nicole Tzeremes, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Biaggi and Biaggi, New York, N.Y. (Richard M. Biaggi of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, for specific performance of a contract for the sale of real property, theplaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, QueensCounty (McDonald, J.), dated January 17, 2008, as denied that branch of his motion which waspursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the counterclaims.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and thatbranch of the plaintiff's motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss thecounterclaims is granted.
In their answer, the defendants asserted counterclaims based on certain allegedly fraudulentmisrepresentations made by the plaintiff. In order to prevail on the counterclaims, the defendantswould have to demonstrate, among other things, that they justifiably relied on the plaintiff'salleged misrepresentations, and were injured as a result of those misrepresentations (seeChannel Master Corp. v Aluminium Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403, 407 [1958]). However, evenwhen accepting the facts alleged in support of the counterclaims as true, and according thedefendants the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see Leon v Martinez, 84NY2d 83, 87 [1994]), the counterclaims are not supported by sufficient allegations from which itcould reasonably be found that the defendants justifiably relied on the alleged misrepresentations(see Sareen v Sareen, 51 AD3d765 [2008]). Furthermore, some of the counterclaims are not supported by sufficientallegations from which it could reasonably be found [*2]that thedefendants were injured as a result of the alleged misrepresentations (see Old Clinton Corp. v 502 Old CountryRd., 5 AD3d 363, 364-365 [2004]). Under these circumstances, the Supreme Courtshould have granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to dismiss the counterclaims(see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; see also CPLR 3016 [b]). Mastro, J.P., Covello, Eng andLeventhal, JJ., concur.