Legal Opinion
Golub v. Tanenbaum-Harber Co.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided October 27, 2011PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Supreme Court properly granted the motion to dismiss the complaint. Affording the complaint a liberal construction and according plaintiff the benefit of every possible inference, as we must (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), we find that plaintiff failed to sufficiently plead causes of action for fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment and violation of General Business Law § 349.
Plaintiff s claims for fraudulent inducement are based on defendant’s alleged failure to provide plaintiff with certain information relating to the insurance policies it was offering. However, an…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Leon v. MartinezNew York Court of Appeals · 1994
- Oswego Laborers' Local 214 Pension Fund v. Marine Midland Bank, N. A.New York Court of Appeals · 1995
- Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLPNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
- Murphy v. KuhnNew York Court of Appeals · 1997
- R/S Associates v. New York Job Development AuthorityNew York Court of Appeals · 2002
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- Camacho v. IO Practiceware, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2016
- Dreamco Dev. Corp. v. Empire State Dev. Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
- Scarola v. Verizon Communications, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2017