The verified complaint adequately sets forth causes of action for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia: that defendant-appellant was her accountant; that he advised her to loan $25,000 to another one of his clients; that he advised her that there was no need to secure the loan; that he knew of the borrower's insolvency and intentionally deceived plaintiff; that plaintiff relied on defendant-appellant's advice; and, plaintiff was damaged as a result, since the loan has not been fully repaid (see, Lyons v Quandt, 91 A.D.2d 709; Mandelblatt v Devon Stores, 132 A.D.2d 162, 166-168).
We have considered all other claims and find them to be of no merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.