Cangro v. Marangos

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leland G. DeGrasse, J.), entered January 22, 2008, which denied plaintiffs motion for an order “granting compensatory and punitive damages” and setting a trial date, and granted defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The allegations in the complaint and in plaintiffs affidavit constitute “bare legal conclusions” (see Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233, 233-234 [1994]). Flaintiff’s fraud claims are not pleaded with the requisite particularity (CELR 3016 [b]). Her defamation claims fail because the alleged offending statements were made in the context of a judicial proceeding to which they were directly related (see Sexter & Warmflash, P.C. v Margrabe, 38 AD3d 163, 174-176 [2007]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, McGuire and Moskowitz, JJ.