KNK Enter., Inc. v. Harriman Enter., Inc., 33 A.D.3d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). · Go Syfert
Search
KNK Enter., Inc. v. Harriman Enter., Inc., 33 A.D.3d 872 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2019–2025 · …a party cannot claim reliance on a misrepresentation when he or she could have discovered the truth with due diligence ✓
33 citation events (33 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company (ca4, 2025-01-15)
Treatment trajectory · 2008 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2008 2017 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Atain Specialty Insurance Company
4th Cir. · 2025 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
C.P.L.R. § 213 (8))); cf. KNK Enters., Inc. v. Harriman Enters., Inc., 824 N.Y.S.2d 307, 307 (N.Y.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Weiss v. Hager
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Reliance on misrepresentations is not justified when the truth could have been discovered with due diligence (see KNK Enters., Inc. v Harriman Enters., Inc., 33 AD3d 872, 872 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CGM Construction, Inc. v. Sydor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
In other words, when there is a design specification contract, a contractor follows the architectural plans and specifications provided by an owner, and the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in such plans and specifications or be prevented from recovering contractually-agreed upon payments for work completed in compliance with them (see United States v Spearin, 248 US 132, 136 [1918]; MacKnight Flintic Stone Co. v Mayor of City of N.Y., 160 NY at 82 ; Larchmont Nurseries, Inc. v Daly, 33 AD3d 872, 874 [2006]; Fruin-Colnon Corp. v Niagara Frontier Transp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) CGM Construction, Inc. v. Sydor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
In other words, when there is a design specification contract, a contractor follows the architectural plans and specifications provided by an owner, and the contractor will not be responsible for the consequences of defects in such plans and specifications or be prevented from recovering contractually-agreed upon payments for work completed in compliance with them (see United States v Spearin, 248 US 132, 136 [1918]; MacKnight Flintic Stone Co. v Mayor of City of N.Y., 160 NY at 82 ; Larchmont Nurseries, Inc. v Daly, 33 AD3d 872, 874 [2006]; Fruin-Colnon Corp. v Niagara Frontier Transp.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Structured Capital Solutions, LLC v. Commerzbank AG
S.D.N.Y. · 2016 · confidence medium
To prevail on its fraud claim, plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence both that it “actually relied” on a fraudulent statement and that its “reliance was reasonable or justifiable.” KNK Enters., Inc. v. Hardman Enters., Inc., 33 A.D.3d 872 , 824 N.Y.S.2d 307, 307 (2d Dep’t 2006); Laugh Factory, Inc. v. Basciano, 608 F.Supp.2d 549, 558 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (noting that the “clear and convincing” standard applies on summary judgement).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Paraco Gas Corp. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America
S.D.N.Y. · 2014 · confidence medium
However, “[t]o prevail on a claim of fraud, a plaintiff must show that it actually relied on the purported fraudulent statements and that its reliance was reasonable or justifiable.” KNK Enters., Inc. v. Harriman Enters., Inc., 33 A.D.3d 872 , 824 N.Y.S.2d 307, 307 (2006).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sargiss v. Magarelli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Considering the evidence before the court in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d at 556 ; Clarke v Phillips, 112 AD3d at 874; Miller v Bah, 74 AD3d at 763 ), there was no rational process by which the court, as trier of fact, could have concluded that the plaintiff reasonably or justifiably relied on the misrepresentations her now-deceased former husband allegedly made during their divorce action with regard to the sale of his share in a business entity to his brother (see KNK Enters., Inc. v Harriman Enters., Inc., 33 AD3d 872, 872 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Sargiss v. Magarelli
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Considering the evidence before the court in the light most favorable to the plaintiff (see Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d at 556 ; Clarke v Phillips, 112 AD3d at 874; Miller v Bah, 74 AD3d at 763 ), there was no rational process by which the court, as trier of fact, could have concluded that the plaintiff reasonably or justifiably relied on the misrepresentations her now-deceased former husband allegedly made during their divorce action with regard to the sale of his share in a business entity to his brother (see KNK Enters., Inc. v Harriman Enters., Inc., 33 AD3d 872, 872 [2006]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Country Pointe at Dix Hills Home Owners Ass'n v. Beechwood Organization
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Associates, LLC, conclusively proves that the amenities and services which the members of the homeowners association claimed they were receiving, were in accord with those documents, as well as the deal those members bargained for when purchasing their homes (see Larchmont Nurseries, Inc. v Daly, 33 AD3d 872, 874 [2006]; Nagle v Shearson Lehman Bros., 190 AD2d 568 [1993]).
cited Cited "see" Nabatkhorian v. Nabatkhorian
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Leasehold LLC v Deloitte & Touche LLP, 19 AD3d 183, 185 [2005]; see KNK Enters., Inc. v Harriman Enters., Inc., 33 AD3d 872, 872 [2006]; Harris v Camilleri, 77 AD2d 861, 863 [1980]).
cited Cited "see" Bandier v. Tim Blenk Tree Care, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
Co. v Gaco W., 229 AD2d 471, 474 [1996]; see Larchmont Nurseries, Inc. v Daly, 33 AD3d 872, 874 [2006]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
KNK Enterprises, Inc.
v.
Harriman Enterprises, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 23, 2006.
33 A.D.3d 872
Cited by 12 opinions  |  Published

In an action to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), entered December 3, 2004, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $77,500.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.

To prevail on a claim of fraud, a plaintiff must show that it actually relied on the purported fraudulent statements and that its reliance was reasonable or justifiable (see Harris v Camilleri, 77 AD2d 861, 863 [1980]). A party cannot claim reliance on a misrepresentation when he or she could have discovered the truth with due diligence (see East 15360 Corp. v Provident Loan Socy. of N.Y., 177 AD2d 280 [1991]). Here, the plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, decided to proceed with the transaction, despite knowing that it had not received full information concerning the transaction; thus its reliance cannot be considered reasonable or justifiable.

In light of our determination, we need not address the parties’ remaining contentions. Miller, J.P, Goldstein, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.