Sidamonidze v. Kay, 304 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Sidamonidze v. Kay, 304 A.D.2d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2021–2023 · 2 courts · …mere puffery, opinions of value or future expectations at p. 560 ✓
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 3 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Quattro Parent LLC v. Rakib (nyappdiv, 2020-03-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Quattro Parent LLC v. Rakib
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
The motion court correctly rejected defendant's misrepresentation-based defense and counterclaims, as the valuation report on which defendant allegedly relied was a nonactionable projection of future profitability ( see ESBE Holdings, Inc. v Vanquish Acquisition Partners, LLC , 50 AD3d 397, 398 [1st Dept 2008]; Sidamonidze v Kay , 304 AD2d 415, 416 [1st Dept 2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) NYAHSA Services, Inc., Self-Insurance Trust v. Recco Home Care Services, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We find that this contention is without merit, as defendant’s damages became certain and ascertainable upon receipt of the March 2010 and March 2011 adjustment bills (compare Sidamonidze v Kay, 304 AD2d 415, 416 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see" Nourieli v. Lemonis
S.D.N.Y. · 2021 · signal: see · confidence high
See Sidamonidze v. Kay, 757 N.Y.S.2d 560, 560 (1st Dep’t 2003) (holding that “mere puffery, opinions of value or future expectations” do not support fraud claim).
Tiemuraz Sidamonidze, and Zaur Glonti
v.
Robert B. Kay
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Apr 17, 2003.
304 A.D.2d 415
2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4147
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 20, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In this action by a foreign investor seeking damages relating to his investment in a foreign business, the motion court correctly found that the alleged misrepresentations did not support a fraud claim because they consisted of mere puffery, opinions of value or future expectations (see Longo v Butler Equities II, 278 AD2d 97 [2000]; Sheth v New York Life Ins. Co., 273 AD2d 72, 74 [2000]), rather than false statements of value (compare P.T. Bank Cent. Asia v ABN AMRO Bank, 301 AD2d 373, 377 [2003]). Plaintiff-appellant’s attempt to set forth a new theory in opposition to summary judgment was unavailing, since the remark relied upon was taken out of context and merely stated unremarkably that shares of a closely held entity, especially one incorporated in a foreign country, are “worthless,” in the sense of lacking any realistic market, unless they become publicly traded.

The negligent misrepresentation cause of action was not viable in the absence of a confidential relationship imposing upon defendants a duty to speak (see Kimmell v Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 263-265 [1996]; Ravenna v Christie’s Inc., 289 AD2d 15 [2001]). No such relationship arose from appellant’s single meeting with the law firm defendants. We reject appellant’s contention that these defendants are liable for conduct, statements or omissions by a codefendant as a result of their being coventurers, since appellant failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of an agreement, express or implied, to share losses, and, thus, as to the existence of a joint venture (see Chanler v Roberts, 200 AD2d 489 [1994], lv denied 84 NY2d 903 [1994]).

We have considered appellant’s other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.