From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Grafstein v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 2010
78 A.D.3d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)

Opinion

No. 2009-08836.

November 9, 2010.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, fraud, and for violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( 18 USC § 1962 [c], [d]), the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered July 30, 2009, as granted those branches of the separate motions of the defendants Richard Schwartz, Marie Neubert, and North American Enclosures, Inc., and the defendants Howard Schultz, Martin Sage, and Schultz Sage, CPAs, P.C., which were to dismiss the eighth and ninth causes of action alleging violations of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ( 18 USC § 1962 [c], [d]) pursuant to CPLR3211 (a) (7).

Ackerman, Levine, Cullen, Brickman Limmer, LLP, Great Neck, N.Y. (John M. Brickman, Todd H. Hesekiel, and Benjamin S. Kaplan of counsel), for appellant.

Richman Levine, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Keith H. Richman and Seth A. Levine of counsel), for respondents Richard Schwartz, Marie Neubert, and North American Enclosures, Inc.

Melito Adolfsen P.C., New York, N.Y. (Ignatius John Melito and John H. Somoza of counsel), for respondents Howard Schultz, Martin Sage, and Schultz and Sage, CPAs, P.C.

Before: Prudenti, PJ., Covello, Florio and Belen, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the defendants' respective motions which were to dismiss the eighth cause of action alleging a violation of the Federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (hereinafter RICO) pursuant to 18 USC § 1962 (c), because the factual allegations in support thereof were not pleaded with the requisite particularity ( see Joyce v JJF Assoc. LLC, 8 AD3d 190; CFJ Assoc. of N.Y. v Hanson Indus., 274 AD2d 892, 896; United Knitwear Co. v North Sea Ins. Co., 203 AD2d 358; Ritchie v Carvel Corp., 180 AD2d 786). As the ninth cause of action based upon 18 USC § 1962 (d), alleging a conspiracy, is dependent upon the eighth cause of action alleging a substantive RICO violation, dismissal of the eighth cause of action necessitated the dismissal of the ninth cause of action ( see Greenstone/Fontana Corp. v Feldstein, 72 AD3d 890; Besicorp, Ltd. v Kahn, 290 AD2d 147).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review.


Summaries of

Grafstein v. Schwartz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 9, 2010
78 A.D.3d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
Case details for

Grafstein v. Schwartz

Case Details

Full title:NORMAN GRAFSTEIN, Appellant, v. RICHARD SCHWARTZ et al., Respondents. Page…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 9, 2010

Citations

78 A.D.3d 772 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 8066
910 N.Y.S.2d 180

Citing Cases

Worldcare Int'l Inc. v. Kay

As such was not allegedly met here, Defendants argue that the 1962(d) cause of action must, likewise be…

Singh v. The LCF Grp.

Plaintiffs' second cause of action for RICO conspiracy is dependent upon the first cause of action alleging a…