| Manik v Citimortgage, Inc. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00463 [102 AD3d 929] |
| January 30, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Delwar Manik, Appellant, v Citimortgage, Inc.,Respondent, et al., Defendants. |
—[*1] Bryan Cave LLP, New York, N.Y. (Noah M. Weissman of counsel), forrespondent.
In an action, inter alia, to rescind a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by hisbrief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McDonald, J.),dated September 30, 2011, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendantCitimortgage, Inc., as successor in interest to Griffin Mortgage Corporation, which waspursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the first cause of action insofar as assertedagainst it.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
"On a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure tostate a cause of action, the court must afford the pleading a liberal construction, accept allfacts as alleged in the pleading to be true, accord the plaintiff the benefit of everypossible inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within anycognizable legal theory" (Breytman v Olinville Realty, LLC, 54 AD3d 703, 703-704[2008]). "Where a cause of action or defense is based upon . . . fraud. . . the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail"(CPLR 3016 [b]).
Here, the plaintiff failed to allege or provide details of any misstatements ormisrepresentations made to him specifically by the respondent, as required by CPLR3016 (b) (see Scott v Fields,85 AD3d 756, 757 [2011]; Moore v Liberty Power Corp., LLC, 72 AD3d 660, 661[2010]). Therefore, according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, thecomplaint failed to state a cause of action sounding in fraud against the respondent and,thus, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondent's motion whichwas to dismiss that cause of action insofar as asserted against it (see Glatt v Mariner Partners,Inc., 63 AD3d 428, 429 [2009]).
The plaintiff's remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time onappeal. Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.