Lanzi v. Brooks

N.Y.

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Citations: 43 N.Y.2d 778, 402 N.Y.S.2d 384, 373 N.E.2d 278, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2568

Decision Date: 12/15/1977

Jurisdiction: NY

Bluebook Citation: Lanzi v. Brooks, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 402 N.Y.S.2d 384, 373 N.E.2d 278, 1977 N.Y. LEXIS 2568 (1977)

More Cases: N.Y. decisions from 1977

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 235 decisions

235

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

N.Y. App. Div.173

S.D.N.Y.22

N.Y. Sup. Ct.14

N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.9

N.Y.5

2d Cir.3

Most recently cited by10

2026Baron v. Laundress, LLC N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Dumigan v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Garcia v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Deliotte v. L'Oreal USA, Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Barber v. Loreal USA, Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Watt v. BP Prods. N. Am. Inc. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2025Azuero v. 204 4th Ave. LLC N.Y. Sup. Kings
2024Ahmed v. Coca-Cola Co. N.Y. Sup. Kings
2024Acrisure, LLC v. Woodruff-Sawyer & Co. N.Y. Sup. Ct., New York Cty.
2022Veerji Exports v. Carlos St Mary, Inc. S.D.N.Y.

Cites 2 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

Joseph Lanzi, Appellant, v Arthur Brooks, Respondent.

Attorneys

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
William E. J. Connor and Francis Bergan for appellant.
Carroll J. Mealey and Robert H. Iseman for respondent.

majority

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 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.