AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes

MARC S. ASPESI, Appellant, v. SHAHINIAN ACOUSTICS, LTD., et al., Respondents.

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of a contract of employment and for fraud, plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), dated September 22, 1980, as granted the branches of defendants' motion which sought (1) to dismiss the third cause of action and (2) a protective order limiting the deposition of the individual defendant to questions pertaining to the first and second causes of action. Order reversed, insofar as appealed from, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, the afore-mentioned branches of defendants' motion are denied and the third cause of action is reinstated. In his third cause of action, plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant promised to pay him a salary if he entered into the employ of the corporate defendant, that the individual defendant never intended to pay the plaintiff, and that plaintiff relied on this promise to his detriment. These allegations are sufficient to establish a prima facie right to recover damages for fraud (see Rudman v Cowles Communications, 30 N.Y.2d 1; Ritzwoller v. Lurie, 225 N.Y. 464). Plaintiff's prayer for relief in connection with this cause of action was a demand for punitive damages. This prayer for relief was improper, because "a demand for punitive damages does not constitute a separate cause of action for pleading purposes" (Brandenberg v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Greater N.Y., 78 A.D.2d 534). Nonetheless, such an improper prayer for relief does not vitiate the cause of action itself. A prayer for relief "normally is not considered in determining * * * the sufficiency of the pleading. [This is a matter] to be established by the statements in the complaint and not the relief sought" (3 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, N.Y. Civ Prac, par 3017.02, p 30-360; see, also, Erbe v. Lincoln Rochester Trust Co., 3 N.Y.2d 321; Gro-Up Frocks v. Manners, 55 A.D.2d 531). Accordingly, the third cause of action should not have been dismissed. Mangano, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ASPESI v. SHAHINIAN ACOUSTICS, LTD
(Oct 13, 1981)