conspiracy claim in New York

2023As "the conflict pertains to a conduct-regulating rule, the law of the place where the tort occurs will generally apply" because that jurisdiction "will almost always have the greatest interest in regulating conduct within its borders" ( Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd. , 110 AD3d 192, 202 [1st Dept 2013]; see also City of Almaty v Sater , 503 F Supp 3d 51, 63 [SD NY 2020]).

2023As "the conflict pertains to a conduct-regulating rule, the law of the place where the tort occurs will generally apply" because that jurisdiction "will almost always have the greatest interest in regulating conduct within its borders" ( Elmaliach v Bank of China Ltd. , 110 AD3d 192, 202 [1st Dept 2013]; see also City of Almaty v Sater , 503 F Supp 3d 51, 63 [SD NY 2020]).

2023The claim under English law alleging unlawful means conspiracy conflicts with New York law, in that it allows for a conspiracy claim without the commission of an underlying tort ( compare In re Nortel Networks, Inc. , 469 BR 478, 513 [D Del Bankr 2012] [English law allows claim for agreement "to do an unlawful act" with intent to harm, which causes harm to a plaintiff], with Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen , 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986] ["a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action"]).

2023The claim under English law alleging unlawful means conspiracy conflicts with New York law, in that it allows for a conspiracy claim without the commission of an underlying tort ( compare In re Nortel Networks, Inc. , 469 BR 478, 513 [D Del Bankr 2012] [English law allows claim for agreement "to do an unlawful act" with intent to harm, which causes harm to a plaintiff], with Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen , 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986] ["a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action"]).

2023The claim under English law alleging unlawful means conspiracy conflicts with New York law, in that it allows for a conspiracy claim without the commission of an underlying tort ( compare In re Nortel Networks, Inc. , 469 BR 478, 513 [D Del Bankr 2012] [English law allows claim for agreement "to do an unlawful act" with intent to harm, which causes harm to a plaintiff], with Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen , 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986] ["a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action"]).

2023The claim under English law alleging unlawful means conspiracy conflicts with New York law, in that it allows for a conspiracy claim without the commission of an underlying tort ( compare In re Nortel Networks, Inc. , 469 BR 478, 513 [D Del Bankr 2012] [English law allows claim for agreement "to do an unlawful act" with intent to harm, which causes harm to a plaintiff], with Alexander & Alexander of N.Y. v Fritzen , 68 NY2d 968, 969 [1986] ["a mere conspiracy to commit a [tort] is never of itself a cause of action"]).

2013We do not find that subjecting the UK defendants to jurisdiction in New York would offend due process (see Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 466 [1988]).

2013We do not find that subjecting the UK defendants to jurisdiction in New York would offend due process (see Kreutter v McFadden Oil Corp., 71 NY2d 460, 466 [1988]).

2025Since there is no w1derlying meritorious claim for fraud, the conspiracy claim is likewise without foundation (see Yukolto v Suzuki, 57 AD3d 205, 207 [1st Dept2008]).

2025Co. v Buziashvili, 49 AD3d 423, 423 [1st Dept 2008]).

2025Co. v Buziashvili, 49 AD3d 423, 423 [1st Dept 2008]).

2021The conspiracy claim does not connect any defendants not already alleged to have committed the primary underlying fraud, and it should have been dismissed as redundant of the numerous claims for aiding and abetting fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty ( American Baptist Churches of Metro. [*3]N.Y. v Galloway , 271 AD2d 92, 101 [1st Dept 2000]).

2019Moreover, the underlying tort alleged in the conspiracy claim is fraud, and the fraud claims were correctly dismissed ( see Williams v Williams , 149 AD3d 1145 [2d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 913 [2018]; Blanco v Polanco , 116 AD3d 892, 896 [2d Dept 2014]).

2019Moreover, the underlying tort alleged in the conspiracy claim is fraud, and the fraud claims were correctly dismissed ( see Williams v Williams , 149 AD3d 1145 [2d Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 913 [2018]; Blanco v Polanco , 116 AD3d 892, 896 [2d Dept 2014]).

2019The conspiracy claim was correctly dismissed because New York does not recognize an independent cause of action in tort for conspiracy ( Waggoner v Caruso , 68 AD3d 1, 6 [1st Dept 2009], affd 14 NY3d 874 [2010]).

2019Here, however, the complaint merely recites those elements and fails to assert any supporting factual allegations with respect to the associate defendants' "overt act[s] in furtherance of the agreement" and "intentional participation in the furtherance of a plan or purpose" ( id. [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2019Such a conspiracy claim "may be asserted where . . . there are allegations of a primary tort, plus the following four elements: (1) an agreement between two or more parties; (2) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement; (3) the parties' intentional participation in the furtherance of a plan or purpose; and (4) resulting damage or injury" ( Great Lakes Motor Corp. v Johnson, 156 AD3d 1369, 1371-1372 [4th Dept 2017] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2013Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint to add these new causes of action is denied for palpable insufficiency (see Lucido v Mancuso, 49 AD3d 220, 227 [2d Dept 2008]).

2010As the parties recognize, the Aguilar-Spinelli test is relevant with respect to Ryan and Battuello inasmuch as they “had no direct knowledge of the information” relied upon in arresting plaintiff (People v Hicks, 38 NY2d 90, 93 [1975]).

2010As Supreme Court correctly noted, New York does not recognize an independent cause of action for conspiracy to commit a civil tort (see Romano v Romano, 2 AD3d 430, 432 [2003] [“a cause of action sounding in civil conspiracy cannot stand alone, but stands or falls with the underlying tort”]).

2008Because the substantive RICO claim was deficient, so was the conspiracy claim (Crab House of Douglaston, Inc. v Newsday, Inc., 418 F Supp 2d 193, 212 [2006]; see generally Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 57 [1999]).

2008Because the substantive RICO claim was deficient, so was the conspiracy claim (Crab House of Douglaston, Inc. v Newsday, Inc., 418 F Supp 2d 193, 212 [2006]; see generally Small v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 NY2d 43, 57 [1999]).

2008The conspiracy claim, which alleges that defendants conspired to provide the owner with justification for his refusal to discuss the rent for the renewal term, fails as well, since New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as an independent tort (Shared Communications Servs. of ESR, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co., 23 AD3d 162, 163 [2005]), and there is no underlying tort to support this theory (see Frank v Daimler Chrysler Corp., 292 AD2d 118, 128 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 502 [2002]).

2008The conspiracy claim, which alleges that defendants conspired to provide the owner with justification for his refusal to discuss the rent for the renewal term, fails as well, since New York does not recognize civil conspiracy as an independent tort (Shared Communications Servs. of ESR, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co., 23 AD3d 162, 163 [2005]), and there is no underlying tort to support this theory (see Frank v Daimler Chrysler Corp., 292 AD2d 118, 128 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 502 [2002]).

2008Lacking, however, is the assertion of any misrepresentation by either Roshco or Rich that was calculated to induce plaintiffs detrimental reliance so as to support a claim of fraud (cf. Houbigant, Inc. v Deloitte & Touche, 303 AD2d 92, 100 [2003]) and, absent any underlying tort, the conspiracy claim is likewise without foundation (see Jebran v LaSalle Bus.

2008Credit, LLC, 33 AD3d 424, 425 [2006]).

2007Holding, Inc. v U.S. Traffic Corp., 206 F Supp 2d 362, 373 [ED NY 2002]). *369 Plaintiffs’ allegations of defendants’ fraudulent motive and tortious conduct aimed at the public generally suffice to plead a claim for punitive damages under both the breach of contract and common-law fraud causes of action (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins.

2001In addition, the Commissioner found petitioners’ conspiracy claim to be “not credibly established.” Although petitioners maintain that the Commissioner erred in crediting the testimony of Le Grand over petitioners’ witnesses, this Court “may not substitute its judgment for that of the agency where conflicting evidence exists, because it is for the agency to pass upon the credibility of witnesses and to base its inferences on what it accepts as the truth” (Matter of State Div. of Human Rights v Muia, 176 AD2d 1142, 1143 ; see, Matter of State Div. of Human Rights [Cottongim] v County of Onondag