Defendant appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, New York County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 27, 2007, which granted a motion by plaintiff to dismiss defendant's counterclaims and denied, sub silentio, defendant's cross motion for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR Part 130.

PER CURIAM:

Order (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered March 27, 2007, modified to deny plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's first counterclaim and to reinstate said cause of action; as modified, order affirmed, without costs.

The common-law fraud cause of action embodied in defendant's first counterclaim, as supplemented by her affidavit and documentation (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]), was sufficiently particularized to satisfy CPLR 3016(b). Defendant's allegations of systematic double billing and billing for overlapping, concurrent periods over an extended time frame adequately identified "the particular manner in which ... item[s] included in the [multiple billing] statements relied upon [have] been intentionally and recklessly misrepresented" (Chaikovska v Ernst & Young, LLC, 21 AD3d 1324, 1326 [2005]). "Although under section 3016(b) the complaint must sufficiently detail the allegedly fraudulent conduct, that requirement should not be confused with unassailable proof of fraud" (Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., ___ NY3d ___, 2008 NY Slip Op 04183 [2008]). To the extent plaintiff sought dismissal of the fraud counterclaim for failure to state a cause of action, as opposed to insufficient particularity, the dismissal remedy was similarly unwarranted (cf. Sternberg v Citicorp Credit Services, 69 AD2d 352, 360-361, n 4 [1979] [single error appearing in single billing statement "does not alone support an inference of fraud rather than mere clerical error"]).

We have considered defendant's remaining arguments, including her request for sanctions under 22
NYCRR 130, and find them lacking in merit.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
Decision Date: July 28, 2008