| Theaprin Pharms., Inc. v Conway |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02348 [137 AD3d 1254] |
| March 30, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| Theaprin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.,Appellants, v Joseph D. Conway et al., Respondents. |
Simon Taylor, New York, NY, for appellants.
Doar Rieck Kaley & Mack, New York, NY (John F. Kaley of counsel), forrespondents.
In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, theplaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Driscoll, J.),entered December 11, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendants Joseph D.Conway and Joseph D. Conway Certified Public Accountant and the separate motion ofthe defendants Michael Conway and Diana Conway to dismiss the complaint insofar asasserted against them, respectively, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly held that the plaintiffs' causes of action allegingprofessional malpractice, negligence, and conversion were untimely brought (seeCPLR 214 [3], [6]). Contrary to the plaintiffs' contention, the defendants were notequitably estopped from relying on the statute of limitations (see Putter v North Shore Univ.Hosp., 7 NY3d 548, 552-553 [2006]; Matter of Incorporated Vil. of Westbury v IACO Realty, Inc.,131 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2015]; Attallah v Nassau Univ. Med. Ctr., 131 AD3d 609, 610[2015]).
On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), the court mustaccept the plaintiffs' allegations as true and construe the allegations liberally, giving theplaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference (see Dee v Rakower, 112 AD3d204, 208 [2013]; EastHampton Union Free School Dist. v Sandpebble Bldrs., Inc., 66 AD3d 122, 125[2009], affd 16 NY3d 775 [2011]). Here, applying that standard, the SupremeCourt correctly granted those branches of the motions which were to dismiss theplaintiffs' cause of action alleging breach of contract inasmuch as the complaintcontained no allegations of the terms of any purported agreement (see Mandarin Trading Ltd. vWildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 181-182 [2011]; Canzona v Atanasio, 118 AD3d 837, 838-839 [2014]).Vague allegations suggesting that there may have been an agreement do not suffice(see Canzona v Atanasio, 118 AD3d at 839).
The plaintiffs' causes of action alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty failed tosatisfy the particularity requirements of CPLR 3016 (see CPLR 3016 [b]; Fulton v Hankin & Mazel,PLLC, 132 AD3d 806, 807 [2015]; Deblinger v Sani-Pine Prods. Co., Inc., 107 AD3d 659, 660[2013]). Specifically, with respect to fraud, the complaint failed to allege facts supportingthe allegations that the defendants knowingly misrepresented a material fact for thepurpose of inducing reliance, actual justifiable reliance, and damages (see Fulton vHankin & Mazel, PLLC, 132 AD3d at 807-808; Pace [*2]v Raisman & Assoc., Esqs., LLP, 95 AD3d1185, 1188-1189 [2012]). With respect to the cause of action alleging breach offiduciary duty, the plaintiffs failed to make specific factual allegations, with respect tosome of the defendants, that would establish that those defendants had a fiduciaryobligation running to the plaintiffs (see Rosenblum v Island Custom Stairs, Inc., 130 AD3d803, 804 [2015]; Bill Kolb,Jr., Subaru, Inc. v LJ Rabinowitz, CPA, 117 AD3d 978, 980 [2014]; Parekh v Cain, 96 AD3d812, 816, 817 [2012]). Where the allegations supporting the existence of a fiduciaryrelationship itself were sufficient, the allegations as to the defendants' breach of it werenot (see Edem v GrandbelleIntl., Inc., 118 AD3d 848, 849 [2014]; Deblinger v Sani-Pine Prods. Co.,Inc., 107 AD3d at 660-661). The plaintiffs' claims regarding alleged statutoryviolations are similarly flawed (see United States Fire Ins. Co. v Raia, 94 AD3d 749, 751[2012]).
The Supreme Court also correctly granted those branches of the motions which werepursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the causes of action for an accounting (see Mawere v Landau, 130AD3d 986, 990 [2015]) and for the imposition of a constructive trust (see Silberstang vBiderman-Gross, 134 AD3d 693, 694-695 [2015]), and to recover damages forunjust enrichment (see Citibank,N.A. v Walker, 12 AD3d 480, 481 [2004]) and conversion (see Fulton vHankin & Mazel, PLLC, 132 AD3d at 809; Ehrenkranz v 58 MHR, LLC, 127 AD3d 918, 919[2015]).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressedin light of our determination.
In sum, the Supreme Court properly granted the motions pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a)to dismiss the complaint. Dickerson, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.