Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered September 4, 2014, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The complaint’s boilerplate allegations that defendants disclosed confidential information, thereby causing harm, are too vague and conclusory to sustain a breach of contract cause of action (see Gordon v Dino De Laurentiis Corp., 141 AD2d 435, 436 [1st Dept 1988]). Moreover, the complaint failed to allege how the alleged breach caused any injury (id.). Dismissal of the cause of action alleging breach of fiduciary duty was also warranted since plaintiff failed to plead it with particularity, as required by CPLR 3016 (b) (see Berardi v Berardi, 108 AD3d 406, 407 [1st Dept 2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 861 [2014]), and the claim was duplicative of the breach of contract claim (see Kaminsky v FSP Inc., 5 AD3d 251, 252 [1st Dept 2004]).
The court properly denied plaintiff’s request for leave to replead, as plaintiff failed to submit a proposed amended pleading accompanied by an affidavit of merit (see Fletcher v Boies, Schiller & Flexner, LLP, 75 AD3d 469, 470 [1st Dept 2010]).
Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Renwick, Saxe, Gische and Kahn, JJ.