Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
21 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1977–2026 6 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Aievoli v. Farleygreen2 sentences2024Plaintiff appeals from both the order and the judgment, and defendant cross-appeals from the judgment. [FN1] Initially, defendant failed to preserve his contention that plaintiff's fraud in the inducement claim should not have been presented to the jury as it is duplicative of his breach of contract claim ( see Aievoli v Farley , 223 AD2d 613, 614 [2d Dept 1996]). 2024Plaintiff appeals from both the order and the judgment, and defendant cross-appeals from the judgment. [FN1] Initially, defendant failed to preserve his contention that plaintiff's fraud in the inducement claim should not have been presented to the jury as it is duplicative of his breach of contract claim ( see Aievoli v Farley , 223 AD2d 613, 614 [2d Dept 1996]). | 2 | 2 |
Nastro Contracting, Inc. v. Agustagreen2 sentences2012This claim was properly dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract claims that alleged defective and deficient work (see Nastro Contr. v Agusta, 217 AD2d 874, 875 [3d Dept 1995]). 2012This claim was properly dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract claims that alleged defective and deficient work (see Nastro Contr. v Agusta, 217 AD2d 874, 875 [3d Dept 1995]). | 2 | 2 |
Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLPgreen2 sentences2012Even assuming that section 14.1, when read in conjunction with section 7.1, does not provide the requisite particular disclaimer of reliance regarding air conditioning, the court properly held that plaintiffs’ fraud in the inducement claim fails for lack of justifiable reliance on the alleged misrepresentation (see generally Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559-560 [2009]). 2012Even assuming that section 14.1, when read in conjunction with section 7.1, does not provide the requisite particular disclaimer of reliance regarding air conditioning, the court properly held that plaintiffs’ fraud in the inducement claim fails for lack of justifiable reliance on the alleged misrepresentation (see generally Eurycleia Partners, LP v Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553, 559-560 [2009]). | 2 | 2 |
Citibank, N. A. v. Plapingergreen2 sentences2026Moreover, where, as here, a guaranty is absolute and unconditional, fraud in the inducement is not a defense to an action on such guaranty (see Citibank, N.A. v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90 [1985]; 534 Flatbush Holdings, LLC v Solaris Props., LLC, 234 AD3d 732 [2d Dept 2025]). 158180/2024 119 BAXTER STREET CC LLC vs. 1991As held by the Court of Appeals in Citibank v Plapinger ( 66 NY2d 90 ), where, as here, a guarantee recites that it is absolute and unconditional irrespective of any lack of validity or enforceability of the collateral, which recitals are inconsistent with the guarantor’s claim of reliance upon oral representations, fraud in the inducement is not a defense to an action on such guarantee under the rule of Danann Realty Corp. v Harris ( 5 NY2d 317 ). | 1 | 5 |
Emigrant Mtge. Co., Inc. v. Public Adm'r of Kings Countygreen1 sentence2024Co., Inc. v Public Adm'r of Kings County , 207 AD3d 437, 441 [2d Dept 2022] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Piccirilli v Benjamin , 226 AD3d 1233 , 1235-1236 [3d Dept 2024]). | 1 | 1 |
Creative Culinary Concepts, LLC v. Sam Greco Construction, Inc.green1 sentence2024Fraud in the inducement is a defense to the enforcement of a promissory note ( see Creative Culinary Concepts, LLC v Sam Greco Constr., Inc. , 134 AD3d 1294, 1295 [3d Dept 2015]), and, as such, defendants were required to "allege that (1) the plaintiff made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and the plaintiff knew to be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the defendant to rely upon it, (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury" ( Emigrant Mtge. | 1 | 1 |
Facebook, Inc. v. DLA Piper LLP (US)green1 sentence2024Plaintiffs' fraud in the inducement claim is per se defective, as it is based on allegations that defendants made misrepresentations with the intent of inducing plaintiffs' reliance on them "upon information and belief" ( see Weinberg v Kaminsky , 166 AD3d 428 , 429 [1st Dept 2018], quoting Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP (US) , 134 AD3d 610, 615 [1st Dept 2015]). | 1 | 1 |
Board of Mgrs. of the Walton Condominium v. 264 H2O Borrower, LLCgreen2 sentences2024Plaintiff alleged specific "affirmative misrepresentations, not omissions," by defendants, "who are principals of the sponsor, and who signed the certification in the offering plan" ( Board of Mgrs. of the Walton Condominium v 264 H2O Borrower, LLC , 180 AD3d 622, 622 [1st Dept 2020]). 2024Plaintiff alleged specific "affirmative misrepresentations, not omissions," by defendants, "who are principals of the sponsor, and who signed the certification in the offering plan" ( Board of Mgrs. of the Walton Condominium v 264 H2O Borrower, LLC , 180 AD3d 622 , 622 [1st Dept 2020]). | 1 | 1 |
Eurotech Development, Inc. v. Adirondack Pennysaver, Inc.green1 sentence2002Similarly, in the context of a failed merger between two law firms, where each party claims that the other breached the agreements in issue and little discovery has been had on these issues, a determination as a matter of law that Lacher’s acceptance of benefits and delay in seeking rescission of the agreement vitiates his fraud in the inducement claim would clearly be premature. 1 In sum, the IAS court erred in prematurely granting SDMC partial summary judgment on its lease claim where Lacher’s fraud-based rescission claim, if successful, would undermine SDMC’s entitlement to its claim on the | 1 | 1 |
Pomranz v. Taubergreen1 sentence2002Similarly, in the context of a failed merger between two law firms, where each party claims that the other breached the agreements in issue and little discovery has been had on these issues, a determination as a matter of law that Lacher’s acceptance of benefits and delay in seeking rescission of the agreement vitiates his fraud in the inducement claim would clearly be premature. 1 In sum, the IAS court erred in prematurely granting SDMC partial summary judgment on its lease claim where Lacher’s fraud-based rescission claim, if successful, would undermine SDMC’s entitlement to its claim on the | 1 | 1 |
Reiser, Inc. v. Roberts Real Estategreen1 sentence2002Similarly, in the context of a failed merger between two law firms, where each party claims that the other breached the agreements in issue and little discovery has been had on these issues, a determination as a matter of law that Lacher’s acceptance of benefits and delay in seeking rescission of the agreement vitiates his fraud in the inducement claim would clearly be premature. 1 In sum, the IAS court erred in prematurely granting SDMC partial summary judgment on its lease claim where Lacher’s fraud-based rescission claim, if successful, would undermine SDMC’s entitlement to its claim on the | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smalley v. Dreyfus Corp.
green
2 sentences2013Assuming, arguendo, that EPIC acted as plaintiffs employer when the Human Resources Department shared by PowerGuard and EPIC sent plaintiff a termination letter on EPIC’s letterhead, then plaintiff’s fraud in the inducement claim would still be barred (see Smalley, 10 NY3d at 59 ). 2013Assuming, arguendo, that EPIC acted as plaintiffs employer when the Human Resources Department shared by PowerGuard and EPIC sent plaintiff a termination letter on EPIC’s letterhead, then plaintiff’s fraud in the inducement claim would still be barred (see Smalley, 10 NY3d at 59 ). | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Millerton Agway Cooperative, Inc. v. Briarcliff Farms, Inc.
green
2 sentences1979Fraud in the inducement is also a defense in an action to enforce the obligation brought by the perpetrator of the fraud (Millerton Agway Co-op. v Briarcliif Farms, 17 NY2d 57 ). 1977The improbability of reliance upon the claimed misrepresentation is insufficient standing alone to provide a basis to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Millerton Agway Corp. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 NY2d 57 ; Plastoid Cable Corp. of Amer v TFI Cos., 55 AD2d 930 ). | 2 | 1977–1979 |
Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris
green
1 sentence1991As held by the Court of Appeals in Citibank v Plapinger ( 66 NY2d 90 ), where, as here, a guarantee recites that it is absolute and unconditional irrespective of any lack of validity or enforceability of the collateral, which recitals are inconsistent with the guarantor’s claim of reliance upon oral representations, fraud in the inducement is not a defense to an action on such guarantee under the rule of Danann Realty Corp. v Harris ( 5 NY2d 317 ). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Great Neck Car Care Center, Inc. v. Artpat Auto Repair Corp.
green
1 sentence1987We further note that contrary to the defendants’ contention, the general disclaimer and merger clause in the contract does not preclude an action to recover damages for fraud in the inducement nor does it bar parol evidence concerning the alleged fraudulent representations set forth in the complaint (see, Sabo v Delman, 3 NY2d 155, 161 ; Great Neck Car Care Center v Artpat Auto Repair Corp., 107 AD2d 658, 659 , lv dismissed 65 NY2d 897 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Sabo v. Delman
green
1 sentence1987We further note that contrary to the defendants’ contention, the general disclaimer and merger clause in the contract does not preclude an action to recover damages for fraud in the inducement nor does it bar parol evidence concerning the alleged fraudulent representations set forth in the complaint (see, Sabo v Delman, 3 NY2d 155, 161 ; Great Neck Car Care Center v Artpat Auto Repair Corp., 107 AD2d 658, 659 , lv dismissed 65 NY2d 897 ). | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Wittenberg v. Robinov
green
1 sentence1985In any event, the purported disclaimer would not inure to the benefit of defendant L’Hommedieu as he was not a party to the contract (see, Wittenberg v Robinov, 9 NY2d 261 ). | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Plastoid Cable Corp. of America v. TFI Companies Inc.
neutral
1 sentence1977The improbability of reliance upon the claimed misrepresentation is insufficient standing alone to provide a basis to grant plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Millerton Agway Corp. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 NY2d 57 ; Plastoid Cable Corp. of Amer v TFI Cos., 55 AD2d 930 ). | 1 | 1977–1977 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.