Fortress Credit Corp. v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C.

Fortress Credit Corp. v Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C. 2012 NY Slip Op 03954 Decided on May 22, 2012 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 22, 2012
Tom, J.P., Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, Abdus-Salaam, JJ.
7725 651023/10

[*1]Fortress Credit Corp., et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v

Ruskin Moscou Faltischek P.C., Defendant-Appellant.




Lester Schwab Katz & Dwyer, LLP, New York (Lawrence A.
Steckman of counsel), for appellant.
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, New York (Cindy
Caranella Kelly of counsel), for respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Edward Ramos, J.), entered March 29, 2011, which denied defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint.

For the reasons stated in Fortress Credit Corp. v Dechert LLP (89 AD3d 615 [2011]) — a case involving virtually identical facts and allegations — the complaint in this action fails to state claims for fraud, legal malpractice, negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs have not distinguished this case from Dechert and there has been no change in the law to warrant reexamination of the issues (see
NAMA Holdings, LLC v Greenberg Traurig, LLP, 92 AD3d 614 [2012]; compare George Campbell Painting v National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 92 AD3d 104, 105-106 [2012]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: MAY 22, 2012

CLERK