In a November 30, 2011 decision by Justice Pines, the court granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint which contained 12 separate causes of action premised on the plaintiff’s allegations that defendant DePaola transferred title to real property located in Pennsylvania to herself and the plaintiff as tenants in common when they began dating but then wrongfully transferred the deed back to herself by forging the plaintiff’s name, following their break-up. The court dismissed the cause of action for slander on the grounds that the plaintiff failed to plead special damages with the requisite particularity, the fraud claim because the plaintiff failed to allege in detail, as required under CPLR § 3016(b), any misrepresentation DePaola made on which the plaintiff justifiably relied, and the claim for civil conspiracy as such cause of action is not recognized in New York. However, the court permitted the plaintiff to proceed on his other claims (except those he voluntarily dismissed). First, the court rejected the defendants’ argument that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims brought under Article 15 of the Premises Actions and Proceedings Law and RPL § 329 because the subject property was located in Pennsylvania on the grounds that the court’s undisputed personal jurisdiction over the defendants gave the court equity jurisdiction over their rights with respect to foreign property. The court also found that the plaintiff stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty based on the legal principle that co-tenants in common owe each other fiduciary duties and may not ordinarily acquire adverse title to the common property without consent. Finding that claim sufficient, the court permitted the plaintiff to proceed on his claim for aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Finally, the court found the defendants’ argument that the claims against defendant Nolan as a notary failed because the plaintiff cannot prove money damages, as premature, because the plaintiff was not required to provide a rationale for his damages at the pleadings stage.
Manteiga v DePaola, Sup Ct Suffolk County, November 30, 2011, Pines, J, Index No. 16432-2011