Lanzi v. Brooks
Cases that cite this one
242 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Abernathy-Thomas Engineering Co. v. Pall Corp. (District Court, E.D. New York 2000)
- Pludeman v. NORTHERN LEASING (N.Y. 2008)
- Cronos Group Ltd. v. XComIP, LLC (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Meese v. Miller (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)
- Oi Tai Chan v. Society of Shaolin Temple, Inc. (New York Supreme Court 2010)
- Braddock v. Braddock (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Philips Credit Corp. v. Regent Health Group, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1997)
- Red Ball Interior Demolition Corp. v. Palmadessa (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- Gruntal & Co., Inc. v. San Diego Bancorp (District Court, S.D. New York 1995)
- MTV Networks, a Division of Viacom International, Inc. v. Curry (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- Barnum v. Millbrook Care Ltd. Partnership (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- Sazerac Co., Inc. v. Falk (District Court, S.D. New York 1994)
- Giuliano v. Everything Yogurt, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 1993)
- Titsch v. Arnason (District Court, S.D. New York 1993)
- Frutico, S.A. de C.V. v. Bankers Trust Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 1993)
- Stewart v. Jackson & Nash (2d Cir. 1992)
- Stewart v. Jackson & Nash (2d Cir. 1992)
- Deligiannis v. PepsiCo, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1991)
- de Atucha v. Hunt (District Court, S.D. New York 1991)
- Phoenix Canada Oil Co., Ltd. v. Texaco Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 1990)
- Burke v. Bevona (District Court, E.D. New York 1990)
- William H. Burke, Cross-Appellant v. Gus Bevona, as President of Local 32b-32j, Service Employees International Union, Afl-Cio, Cross-Appellee (2d Cir. 1989)
- Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
- Sanitoy, Inc. v. Shapiro (District Court, S.D. New York 1989)
- Adler & Shaykin v. Wachner (District Court, S.D. New York 1988)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum decision of that court, with an additional observation. Plaintiff’s complaint did not allege either a present intent not to carry out the promises of future action, or, in fact, any factual assertions from which this conclusion can be drawn, and thus failed to state a cause of action for fraud based on a misstatement of future *780 intentions (cf. Sabo v Delman, 3 NY2d 155). This failure to allege a necessary element of the cause of action, however, is not to be confused with the requirement of CPLR 3016 (subd [b]) that in an action for fraud, "the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail”. This provision requires only that the misconduct complained of be set forth in sufficient detail to clearly inform a defendant with respect to the incidents complained of and is not to be interpreted so strictly as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be "impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud” (Jered Contr. Corp. v New York City Tr. Auth., 22 NY2d 187, 194).
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.