¶1Apart from the fact that the complaint amounts to an impermissible collateral attack on plaintiffs divorce judgment, it fails to state a cause of action (see CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The fraud allegations are insufficiently detailed (see CPLR 3016 [b]), and the remaining allegations consist of bare legal conclusions (see Caniglia v Chicago Tribune-N.Y. News Syndicate, 204 AD2d 233 [1994]). Concur — Andrias, J.P, Saxe, Sweeny, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.
90 A.D.3d 470
Cangro v. Marangos
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided December 8, 2011
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · decided 2011-12-08
Decided 2011-12-08