| Edem v Grandbelle Intl., Inc. |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04463 [118 AD3d 848] |
| June 18, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Edmund Orok Edem, Appellant, v GrandbelleInternational, Inc., Respondent. |
Edmund Orok Edem, Staten Island, N.Y., appellant pro se.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffappeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court,Richmond County (Fusco, J.), dated October 15, 2012, as granted those branches of thedefendant's motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the second throughtenth causes of action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs ordisbursements.
In April 2012, the plaintiff contracted with the defendant to ship a container of itemsto Nigeria. The defendant is a New York corporation engaged in the business ofconsolidated air freight of goods from the United States to Nigeria. Although the subjectcontainer was delivered to Lagos, Nigeria, in early May 2012, the plaintiff neverretrieved it because he refused to pay the additional amount requested by the defendant tocover the cost of an increased cargo tariff, claiming that payment of the additional costwas the defendant's responsibility.
In or around July 2012, the plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to recoverdamages for breach of contract. Thereafter, the defendant moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a) to dismiss the complaint. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the motionwhich were to dismiss the second through tenth causes of action. The Supreme Courtdenied that branch of the motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action, whichsought damages for breach of contract and, pursuant to CPLR 325 (d) and 22 NYCRR202.13, transferred the matter to the Civil Court of the City of New York, County ofRichmond. The plaintiff appeals from so much of the order as granted those branches ofthe defendant's motion which were to dismiss the second through tenth causes ofaction.
The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendant's motion whichwere pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the second through tenth causes of action,which alleged business fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment,deceptive business practices, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fairdealing, negligence, and intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress,respectively. Those causes of action were all based on the same facts as the cause ofaction to recover damages for breach of contract, and failed to allege distinct, cognizablecauses of action (see Betz vBlatt, 116 AD3d 813, 813 [2014]; Palmieri v [*2]Biggiani, 108AD3d 604, 609 [2013]; Woss, LLC v 218 Eckford, LLC, 102 AD3d 860, 862[2013]). In any event, with respect to the second cause of action, which alleged businessfraud, and the third cause of action, which alleged breach of fiduciary duty, they were notpleaded with the particularity required by CPLR 3016 (b) (see Mandarin Trading Ltd. vWildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 178 [2011]; Deblinger v Sani-Pine Prods. Co., Inc., 107 AD3d 659, 660[2013]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendant'smotion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss the second through tenthcauses of action. Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Roman and Maltese, JJ., concur.