The experts were hired, and now plaintiff (whose attorney hired them) says that they were inexpert. Marks Paneth LLP v Economic Alchemy LLC 2019 NY Slip Op 30532(U) February 26, 2019 Supreme Court, New York County Docket Number: 60427/2017 Judge: Lucy Billings is determined on sufficiency of pleading grounds. The fraud claim fails.
“Plaintiff Marks Paneth LLP seeks damages from defendantthird party plaintiff Economic Alchemy LLC, an intellectual property holding company, for its breach of a contract for expert services in a legal malpractice dispute. Economic Alchemy in turn commenced a third party action against third party defendant Law Office of Daniel L. Abrams, PLLC, Economic Alchemy’s former attorney for the legal malpractice action, to recover the expert fees claimed by plaintiff from Economic Alchemy. It claims that third party defendant misrepresented plaintiff’s 1 expertise, inducing it to retain plaintiff for expert services and to incur fees for services that were never provided or were useless. Third party defendant now moves to dismiss Economic Alchemy’s third party complaint based on documentary evidence, and failure to state a claim. C.P.L.R. § 3211(a) (1) and (7) ”
“Although Economic Alchemy adequately alleges that third party defendant misrepresented plaintiff’s expertise and that Economic Alchemy sustained damages after it relied on these
misrepresentations, it fails to allege any facts supporting the conclusion that third party defendant, somehow, knew its representations were false. The third party complaint’s sole, conclusory allegation that third party defendant knew its representations regarding plaintiff’s expertise were false lacks the requisite specificity or detail to satisfy C.P.L.R. § 3016(b) ‘s pleading requirement. Nowhere . ‘ does Economic Alchemy allege any facts or present’ any evidence indicating that third
party defendant knew plaintiff lacked expertise regarding utility patents, offering nothing from which the court reasonably may infer third party defendant’s scienter. GE Oil & Gas. Inc. v.
Turbine Generation Servs., L.L.C., 168 A.D.3d 563, 563 , (1st Dep’t 2019); Fried v. Lehman Bros. Real Estate Assoc. III, L.P., 156 A.D.3d 464, 465 (1st Dep’t 2017); MMCT. LLC v. JTR Coll. Point.
LLC, 122 A.D.3d 497, 498 (1st Dep’t 2014) i Giant Group, Ltd. v. Arthur Andersen. LLP., 2 A.D.3d 189, 190 (1st Dep’t 2003). ”
“For these reasons, even though third party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third party complaint based on documentary evidence fails for the reasons explained above, C.P.L.R. § 3212(a) (1) I the court grants third party defendant’s motion to dismiss the third party complaint based on its failure to state a claim of fraud, the single claim alleged. C.P.L.R. §§ 301_6 (b)) 3211(a) (7). This decision constitutes the court’s order and judgment dismissing the third party action. “