On October 6, 2017, the Fourth Department issued a decision in Barrett v. Grenda, 2017 NY Slip Op. 07031, holding that the trial court erred in not dismissing a breach of contract claim that did not identify the contract terms that had been breached, explaining:
Plaintiff was required to set forth in that cause of action the provisions of the contract upon which the claim is based. While plaintiff broadly alleged that she had a contract with all defendants to provide prudent financial advice for her benefit and that the TD Ameritrade defendants were obligated to have supervisory and compliance procedures in place, she failed to identify the particular contractual provision that was breached. In addition, the documentary evidence submitted by the TD Ameritrade defendants, i.e., the IRA Application and Client Agreement, conclusively refutes plaintiff’s allegation that the TD Ameritrade defendants owed any such contractual obligations to her. Consequently, we agree with the TD Ameritrade defendants that the court erred in failing to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action against them.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted) (emphasis added).