Majority
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered August 22, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants-appellants’ (defendants) motion to dismiss the aiding and abetting fraud claims against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
To state a claim for aiding and abetting fraud, a plaintiff must allege “the existence of the underlying fraud, actual knowledge, and substantial assistance” (Oster v Kirschner, 77 AD3d 51 , 55 [1st Dept 2010]). Here, the existence of an underlying fraud is sufficiently stated in the complaint, which alleges, among other things, that defendants aided and abetted a
The documentary evidence submitted to the motion court does not “flatly contradict [ ]” the allegations of the complaint (Scott v Bell Atl. Corp., 282 AD2d 180 , 183 [1st Dept 2001], mod on other grounds 98 NY2d 314 [2002]).
We have considered defendants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Richter and Gische, JJ.
Cases cited
- Oster v. Kirschner 77 AD3d 51 at 55 p. 450
- Scott v. Bell Atlantic Corp. 282 AD2d 180 at 183 p. 451
- Goshen v. Mutual Life Insurance 98 NY2d 314 p. 451