149 A.D.3d 1145
N.Y. App. Div.
2017
Wilde start

JACQUELYN WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of CHARLIE WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant, v MAE RUTH WILLIAMS et al., Defendants, and JESSICA LANG et al., Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

[53 NYS3d 152]

1145

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered May 20, 2014, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Jessica Lang and James Corbett which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them and denied her cross motion for leave to amend the amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff, as administratix of her father‘s estate and in her individual capacity, commenced this action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to property located at 140-10 161st Street, Jamaica, Queens, and to recover damages for, among other things, fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants Jessica Lang and James Corbett (hereinafter together the defendants), a notary and an attorney, respectively, allegedly prepared a fraudulent deed conveying the subject property. The defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiff cross-moved for leave to amend the amended complaint. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiff‘s cross motion. The plaintiff appeals.

Contrary to the plaintiff‘s contentions, the Supreme Court properly determined that the amended complaint failed to state causes of action against the defendants alleging fraud (see Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Anza, 63 AD3d 884 [2009]), unjust enrichment (see GFRE, Inc. v U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 AD3d 569, 570 [2015]), or negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Santana v Leith, 117 AD3d 711 [2014]; Klein v Metropolitan Child Servs., Inc., 100 AD3d 708, 710-711 [2012]; Crispino v Greenpoint Mtge. Corp., 2 AD3d 478, 480 [2003]). Further, New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort as an independent cause of action, and a cause of action alleging conspiracy to commit a tort stands or falls with the underlying tort (see Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892, 895-896 [2014]; Barns & Farms Realty, LLC v Novelli, 82 AD3d 689, 691 [2011]). Since the court properly granted dismissal of the tort causes of action in the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants for failure to state a cause of action, the court also properly granted dismissal of the cause of action alleging civil conspiracy insofar as asserted against the defendants (see Arvanitakis v Lester, 145 AD3d 650, 652-653 [2016]). Similarly, the plaintiff‘s claim for punitive damages insofar as asserted against the defendants is not cognizable, since “[a] demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action” (Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 83 NY2d 603, 616 [1994]).

The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiff‘s cross motion for leave to amend the amended complaint (see Chang v First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 20 AD3d 502 [2005]).

The plaintiff‘s remaining contentions are without merit.

Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.

office end 💡 I‘ll first structure the HTML by extracting the core case information from the second case (Jacquelyn Williams v. Mae Ruth Williams et al.) which is the complete opinion. Then I‘ll follow with the opinion text, handling the page transition and legal citations. 1. **Case Info**: * `midpage-case-name`: JACQUELYN WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of CHARLIE WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant, v MAE RUTH WILLIAMS et al., Defendants, and JESSICA LANG et al., Respondents. * `shortName`: Williams v. Williams * `court`: N.Y. App. Div. (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York) * `citation`: [53 NYS3d 152] * `date`: Not explicitly in a single date line, but the order appealed from is May 20, 2014. However, the reporter citation year is not provided in the snippet, but the metadata 1145/1146 refers to the volume. I will use the metadata provided. 2. **Pagination**: * The case starts on page 1145. * Page 1146 begins after “...commenced this action, inter alia, pur-“. 3. **Citations**: * RPAPL article 15 -> `RPAPL article 15` * CPLR 3211 (a) (7) -> `CPLR 3211 (a) (7)` * Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Anza, 63 AD3d 884 [2009] -> `...` * GFRE, Inc. v U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 AD3d 569, 570 [2015] -> `...` * Santana v Leith, 117 AD3d 711 [2014] * Klein v Metropolitan Child Servs., Inc., 100 AD3d 708, 710-711 [2012] * Crispino v Greenpoint Mtge. Corp., 2 AD3d 478, 480 [2003] * Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892, 895-896 [2014] * Barns & Farms Realty, LLC v Novelli, 82 AD3d 689, 691 [2011] * Arvanitakis v Lester, 145 AD3d 650, 652-653 [2016] * Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 83 NY2d 603, 616 [1994] * Chang v First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 20 AD3d 502 [2005] 4. **Formatting**: * Rejoin hyphenated words: “pur-suant” -> “pursuant“. * No `` tags. * Include judges at the end. Let‘s generate the HTML. ```html Case Information JACQUELYN WILLIAMS, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of CHARLIE WILLIAMS, JR., Appellant, v MAE RUTH WILLIAMS et al., Defendants, and JESSICA LANG et al., Respondents. Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York [53 NYS3d 152] 1145 In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to determine claims to real property, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Taylor, J.), entered May 20, 2014, as granted that branch of the motion of the defendants Jessica Lang and James Corbett which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them and denied her cross motion for leave to amend the amended complaint. Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff, as administratix of her father‘s estate and in her individual capacity, commenced this action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of claims to property located at 140-10 161st Street, Jamaica, Queens, and to recover damages for, among other things, fraud, unjust enrichment, and negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The defendants Jessica Lang and James Corbett (hereinafter together the defendants), a notary and an attorney, respectively, allegedly prepared a fraudulent deed conveying the subject property. The defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against them. The plaintiff cross moved for leave to amend the amended complaint. The Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendants’ motion and denied the plaintiff‘s cross motion. The plaintiff appeals. Contrary to the plaintiff‘s contentions, the Supreme Court properly determined that the amended complaint failed to state causes of action against the defendants alleging fraud (see Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Anza, 63 AD3d 884 [2009]), unjust enrichment (see GFRE, Inc. v U.S. Bank, N.A., 130 AD3d 569, 570 [2015]), or negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress (see Santana v Leith, 117 AD3d 711 [2014]; Klein v Metropolitan Child Servs., Inc., 100 AD3d 708, 710-711 [2012]; Crispino v Greenpoint Mtge. Corp., 2 AD3d 478, 480 [2003]). Further, New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort as an independent cause of action, and a cause of action alleging conspiracy to commit a tort stands or falls with the underlying tort (see Blanco v Polanco, 116 AD3d 892, 895-896 [2014]; Barns & Farms Realty, LLC v Novelli, 82 AD3d 689, 691 [2011]). Since the court properly granted dismissal of the tort causes of action in the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants for failure to state a cause of action, the court also properly granted dismissal of the cause of action alleging civil conspiracy insofar as asserted against the defendants (see Arvanitakis v Lester, 145 AD3d 650, 652-653 [2016]). Similarly, the plaintiff‘s claim for punitive damages insofar as asserted against the defendants is not cognizable, since “[a] demand or request for punitive damages is parasitic and possesses no viability absent its attachment to a substantive cause of action” (Rocanova v Equitable Life Assur. Socy. of U.S., 83 NY2d 603, 616 [1994]). The Supreme Court also properly denied the plaintiff‘s cross motion for leave to amend the amended complaint (see Chang v First Am. Tit. Ins. Co. of N.Y., 20 AD3d 502 [2005]). The plaintiff‘s remaining contentions are without merit. Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur. ``` I missed the initial page 1145 snippet. I will only output the main opinion (the second one) as per the instructions “convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case“. The first bit about Halperin‘s counterclaims is the end of a previous case. The “Jacquelyn Williams...” case is the full one. I will start the output with that case. Wait, looking at the instructions: “If the document contains multiple opinions (e.g., end of one case and start of another), convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.” The first case (where Halperin is mentioned) is clearly the end of a preceding opinion. The second case (Jacquelyn Williams v Mae Ruth Williams) is the complete opinion. The citation for the second case is [53 NYS3d 152]. The starting page for the second case is 1145. Final review of citations and attributes: - `midpage-case-name`: Jacquelyn Williams, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Charlie Williams, Jr., Appellant, v Mae Ruth Williams et al., Defendants, and Jessica Lang et al., Respondents. (shortName=“Williams v. Williams“) - `midpage-court`: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York (court=“N.Y. App. Div.“) - `midpage-citation`: [53 NYS3d 152] - `midpage-date`: Not listed as a specific line, but usually included in the full case header. Here, the order date is May 20, 2014. I‘ll omit the date attribute since a clear “Opinion Date” isn‘t present in the caption. Citation formatting check: `Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Anza, 63 AD3d 884 [2009]` -> `Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Anza, 63 AD3d 884 [2009]` Actually, Bluebook cite for AD3d would be like `Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza, 63 A.D.3d 884 (2d Dep‘t 2009)`. However, the prompt says “Preserve formatting exactly“. The OCR shows AD3d. I will use the text provided. One detail: `Jacquelyn Williams...` is the caption. It starts on page 1145. The text “Ordered that the order is affirmed...” follows the case summary. Let‘s double-check the “Yongjie Xu” case at the very end. That‘s the start of a third case. I will stop after “Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.” One more check on `midpage-ps`: Case header is on 1145. The text of the opinion starts on 1145. Transition to 1146 happens mid-word: “pur-suant“. Correct placement: `pursuant`. Actually, rule says “Place at word boundaries, not mid-word“. So: `...inter alia, pursuant to...` Corrected pagination: The text at the bottom of 1145 is “The plaintiff, as administratix of her father’s estate and in her individual capacity, commenced this action, inter alia, pur-“. The word “pursuant” is split. I will place the marker before the word: `...inter alia, pursuant to...` Final check on cites: `Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v Anza, 63 AD3d 884 [2009]` -> case=“Ideal Steel Supply Corp. v. Anza” cite=“63 AD3d 884” court=“N.Y. App. Div.” date=“2009” The court abbreviation for AD3d is `N.Y. App. Div.` in the instructions examples or similar contexts? Let‘s use `N.Y. App. Div.`. Ready.