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.
13 New York opinions name it 3 courts 1988–2024 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Deerfield Communications Corp. v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc.green2 sentences2011“Unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform, a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract . . . and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” (id. at 292; see also Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 NY2d 954, 956 [1986]; GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, 81 AD3d 77, 81 [2010]; Selinger Enters., Inc. v Cassuto, 50 AD3d 766, 768 [2008]; WIT Holding Corp. v Klein, 282 AD2d 527, 528 [2001]). 1999Unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform, a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract (though it may have induced the plaintiff to sign the contract) and therefore involves a separate breach of duty (Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 NY2d 954, 956 ). | 1 | 3 |
Sommer v. Federal Signal Corp.green1 sentence2012Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389 [1987]; cf. Sommer, 79 NY2d at 551-553 [the plaintiffs breach of contract claim against the defendant fire alarm company may also sound in tort where the defendant’s alleged failure to act with due care affected a significant public interest independent of its contractual obligations]). | 1 | 1 |
Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail Roadgreen1 sentence2012Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389 [1987]; cf. Sommer, 79 NY2d at 551-553 [the plaintiffs breach of contract claim against the defendant fire alarm company may also sound in tort where the defendant’s alleged failure to act with due care affected a significant public interest independent of its contractual obligations]). | 1 | 1 |
GoSmile, Inc. v. Levinegreen1 sentence2011“Unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform, a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract . . . and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” (id. at 292; see also Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 NY2d 954, 956 [1986]; GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, 81 AD3d 77, 81 [2010]; Selinger Enters., Inc. v Cassuto, 50 AD3d 766, 768 [2008]; WIT Holding Corp. v Klein, 282 AD2d 527, 528 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Selinger Enterprises, Inc. v. Cassutogreen1 sentence2011“Unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform, a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract . . . and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” (id. at 292; see also Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 NY2d 954, 956 [1986]; GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, 81 AD3d 77, 81 [2010]; Selinger Enters., Inc. v Cassuto, 50 AD3d 766, 768 [2008]; WIT Holding Corp. v Klein, 282 AD2d 527, 528 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
First Bank of the Americas v. Motor Car Funding, Inc.green1 sentence2011A fraud claim will be upheld when a plaintiff alleges that it was induced to enter into a transaction because a defendant misrepresented material facts, even though the same circumstances also give rise to the plaintiffs breach of contract claim (First Bank of Ams. v Motor Car Funding, 257 AD2d 287, 291-292 [1999]). | 1 | 1 |
WIT Holding Corp. v. Kleingreen1 sentence2011“Unlike a misrepresentation of future intent to perform, a misrepresentation of present facts is collateral to the contract . . . and therefore involves a separate breach of duty” (id. at 292; see also Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 NY2d 954, 956 [1986]; GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, 81 AD3d 77, 81 [2010]; Selinger Enters., Inc. v Cassuto, 50 AD3d 766, 768 [2008]; WIT Holding Corp. v Klein, 282 AD2d 527, 528 [2001]). | 1 | 1 |
Bontecou v. Goldmangreen1 sentence2006Therefore, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiff’s constructive trust claims inasmuch as they demonstrated that, in the absence of some interest in the property, the plaintiff could not and did not effectuate a transfer of the subject real property in reliance upon their alleged promise, a necessary element of a cause of action seeking the imposition of a constructive trust upon property (see Cerabono v Price, 7 AD3d 479, 480 [2004]; Martin v Martin, 169 AD2d 821, 822 [1991]; Matter of Lefton [Bedell], 160 AD2d 702, 703-704 [1990]; | 1 | 1 |
Bedell v. Bedellgreen1 sentence2006Therefore, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiff’s constructive trust claims inasmuch as they demonstrated that, in the absence of some interest in the property, the plaintiff could not and did not effectuate a transfer of the subject real property in reliance upon their alleged promise, a necessary element of a cause of action seeking the imposition of a constructive trust upon property (see Cerabono v Price, 7 AD3d 479, 480 [2004]; Martin v Martin, 169 AD2d 821, 822 [1991]; Matter of Lefton [Bedell], 160 AD2d 702, 703-704 [1990]; | 1 | 1 |
LeMin v. Central Suffolk Hospitalgreen1 sentence2006Therefore, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiff’s constructive trust claims inasmuch as they demonstrated that, in the absence of some interest in the property, the plaintiff could not and did not effectuate a transfer of the subject real property in reliance upon their alleged promise, a necessary element of a cause of action seeking the imposition of a constructive trust upon property (see Cerabono v Price, 7 AD3d 479, 480 [2004]; Martin v Martin, 169 AD2d 821, 822 [1991]; Matter of Lefton [Bedell], 160 AD2d 702, 703-704 [1990]; | 1 | 1 |
Catanzaro v. Wallensteingreen1 sentence2006Therefore, the defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the plaintiff’s constructive trust claims inasmuch as they demonstrated that, in the absence of some interest in the property, the plaintiff could not and did not effectuate a transfer of the subject real property in reliance upon their alleged promise, a necessary element of a cause of action seeking the imposition of a constructive trust upon property (see Cerabono v Price, 7 AD3d 479, 480 [2004]; Martin v Martin, 169 AD2d 821, 822 [1991]; Matter of Lefton [Bedell], 160 AD2d 702, 703-704 [1990]; | 1 | 1 |
People v. Woodbournegreen1 sentence2005In these circumstances, the defendants’ proof warranted dismissal of the plaintiffs breach of contract claim for failure to state a cause of action (see Meyer v Guinta, 262 AD2d 463 [1999]; see also Ahmed v Getty Petroleum Mktg., supra; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Law of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:25). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Lundingreen1 sentence1995Smith argued that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim arose out of the first contract between the parties and accrued in 1982 when the final payment certificate was issued under that contract (see, Methodist Hosp. v Perkins & Will Partnership, 203 AD2d 435 ; Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assocs. [FDIC], 189 AD2d 557 ; Board of Educ. v Celotex Corp., 88 AD2d 713 , affd 58 NY2d 684 ; see generally, State of New York v Lundin, 60 NY2d 987 ). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
RKB Enterprises, Inc. v. Ernst & Young
green
2 sentences1999For example, if a plaintiff alleges that it was induced to enter into a transaction because a defendant misrepresented material facts, the plaintiff has stated a claim for fraud even though the same circumstances also give rise to the plaintiffs breach of contract claim (RKB Enters. v Ernst & Young, 182 AD2d 971, 972-973 ). 1999For example, if a plaintiff alleges that it was induced to enter into a transaction because a defendant misrepresented material facts, the plaintiff has stated a claim for fraud even though the same circumstances also give rise to the plaintiffs breach of contract claim (RKB Enters, v Ernst & Young, 182 AD2d 971, 972-973 ). | 2 | 1999–1999 |
Watson v. Sony Music Entertainment, Inc.
green
1 sentence2024However, as in Watson, should the Plaintiff prevail on its breach of contract claim, the Defendant will be bound by to pay future commissions on the same basis the Court will have directed it to pay past commissions ( 282 AD2d 222, at 223 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
CMMF, LLC v. J.P. Morgan Investment Management Inc.
green
1 sentence2011(CMMF, 78 AD3d at 563 .) That determination, however, does not stand for the proposition that the provision must be allegedly violated in order for a plaintiffs breach of contract claim to survive. | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hudson Watch Associates v. H.F.S. Electrical, Inc.
green
1 sentence2005As the defendants did not move to dismiss the cause of action alleging negligence, that cause of action remains undisturbed (see Kantor v Pavelchak, 134 AD2d 352 [1987]). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Meyer v. Guinta
green
1 sentence2005In these circumstances, the defendants’ proof warranted dismissal of the plaintiffs breach of contract claim for failure to state a cause of action (see Meyer v Guinta, 262 AD2d 463 [1999]; see also Ahmed v Getty Petroleum Mktg., supra; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Law of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3211:25). | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Dunham v. Hilco Construction Co.
green
1 sentence2003Co., 89 NY2d 425 [1996]). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Zuckerman v. City of New York
green
1 sentence2000The appellants also made a prima facie showing that they are entitled to summary judgment dismissing the plaintiffs breach of contract claim (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557 ). | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Board of Education of Tri-Valley Central School District at Grahamsville v. Celotex Corp.
green
1 sentence1995Smith argued that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim arose out of the first contract between the parties and accrued in 1982 when the final payment certificate was issued under that contract (see, Methodist Hosp. v Perkins & Will Partnership, 203 AD2d 435 ; Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assocs. [FDIC], 189 AD2d 557 ; Board of Educ. v Celotex Corp., 88 AD2d 713 , affd 58 NY2d 684 ; see generally, State of New York v Lundin, 60 NY2d 987 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
BD. OF EDUC. OF TRI-VALLEY CENT. SCH. DIST. AT GRAHAMSVILLE v. Celotex Corp.
green
1 sentence1995Smith argued that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim arose out of the first contract between the parties and accrued in 1982 when the final payment certificate was issued under that contract (see, Methodist Hosp. v Perkins & Will Partnership, 203 AD2d 435 ; Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assocs. [FDIC], 189 AD2d 557 ; Board of Educ. v Celotex Corp., 88 AD2d 713 , affd 58 NY2d 684 ; see generally, State of New York v Lundin, 60 NY2d 987 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
In re the Arbitration between Kohn Pederson Fox Associates & FDIC
green
1 sentence1995Smith argued that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim arose out of the first contract between the parties and accrued in 1982 when the final payment certificate was issued under that contract (see, Methodist Hosp. v Perkins & Will Partnership, 203 AD2d 435 ; Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assocs. [FDIC], 189 AD2d 557 ; Board of Educ. v Celotex Corp., 88 AD2d 713 , affd 58 NY2d 684 ; see generally, State of New York v Lundin, 60 NY2d 987 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Methodist Hospital v. Perkins & Will Partnership
neutral
1 sentence1995Smith argued that the plaintiffs breach of contract claim arose out of the first contract between the parties and accrued in 1982 when the final payment certificate was issued under that contract (see, Methodist Hosp. v Perkins & Will Partnership, 203 AD2d 435 ; Matter of Kohn Pederson Fox Assocs. [FDIC], 189 AD2d 557 ; Board of Educ. v Celotex Corp., 88 AD2d 713 , affd 58 NY2d 684 ; see generally, State of New York v Lundin, 60 NY2d 987 ). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v. Holborn Oil Co.
green
1 sentence1993A cause of action for fraud does not arise when the only fraud charged relates to a breach of contract (Tesoro Petroleum Corp. v Holborn Oil Co., 108 AD2d 607 , appeal dismissed 65 NY2d 637 ). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Sabetay v. Sterling Drug, Inc.
green
1 sentence1988In this case, there are no triable questions of fact precluding the granting of the appellants’ motion dismissing the plaintiffs breach of contract claim as a matter of law (see, Sabetay v Sterling Drug, 69 NY2d 329 , supra). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.