The art of pleading is sometimes overstated.  Is it sufficient, indeed even preferable, to state the cause of action in understated tone, or is it better to explode with vicious terms?  The jury is still out, but in Carr v Hayes ;2012 NY Slip Op 01184 ;Decided on February 16, 2012 ;Appellate Division, First Department , more was needed than good and strong language.
 

"Plaintiff’s conclusory allegations that his ex-wife, Clements, and her divorce attorney, Hayes, who also represented plaintiff in the sale of the couple’s home, defrauded plaintiff out of his share of the proceeds of that sale, are insufficient to state a cause of action sounding in fraud and breach of trust (see CPLR 3016; see generally Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 492 [2008]). Moreover, plaintiff’s unsupported assertions that all of the documentation regarding the sale of the home, submitted to the court below, was "fraudulent," "false" and "staged," are insufficient to defeat the motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims for fraud, conversion and legal malpractice (see CPLR 3211[a][1]). "