Dismissal of the complaint for, inter alia, fraud as against defendant Soja was proper, since plaintiff's material allegations against Soja, even if facially sufficient, were flatly contradicted by the documentary evidence submitted by plaintiff as exhibits to the complaint (see, Biondi v. Beekman Hill House Apt. Corp., 257 A.D.2d 76, 81, affd 94 N.Y.2d 659). In addition, inasmuch as plaintiff demonstrably had no viable fraud claim against Soja, plaintiff's proposed claim against defendant Young for conspiring with Soja to defraud plaintiff was properly rejected as plainly without merit, and thus leave to replead to assert the proposed claim against Young was properly denied (see, Hornstein v. Wolf, 67 N.Y.2d 721).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.