fraud in the inducement claim in New York

2022While, normally, arguments set forth for the first time in reply should not be considered ( see Miller v Icon Group LLC , 107 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2013]), this Court will consider this argument as it is determinative, does not allege new facts, and is a legal argument on the face of the record that would not have been avoidable if raised in defendants' [*2]moving brief below, and because the record is sufficient to resolve the issue ( see Chateau D'If Corp. v City of New York , 219 AD2d 205, 209-210 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]; see also Kapilevich v City of New York , 103 AD3d

2022While, normally, arguments set forth for the first time in reply should not be considered ( see Miller v Icon Group LLC , 107 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2013]), this Court will consider this argument as it is determinative, does not allege new facts, and is a legal argument on the face of the record that would not have been avoidable if raised in defendants' [*2]moving brief below, and because the record is sufficient to resolve the issue ( see Chateau D'If Corp. v City of New York , 219 AD2d 205, 209-210 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]; see also Kapilevich v City of New York , 103 AD3d

2022While, normally, arguments set forth for the first time in reply should not be considered ( see Miller v Icon Group LLC , 107 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2013]), this Court will consider this argument as it is determinative, does not allege new facts, and is a legal argument on the face of the record that would not have been avoidable if raised in defendants' [*2]moving brief below, and because the record is sufficient to resolve the issue ( see Chateau D'If Corp. v City of New York , 219 AD2d 205, 209-210 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]; see also Kapilevich v City of New York , 103 AD3d

2022While, normally, arguments set forth for the first time in reply should not be considered ( see Miller v Icon Group LLC , 107 AD3d 585 [1st Dept 2013]), this Court will consider this argument as it is determinative, does not allege new facts, and is a legal argument on the face of the record that would not have been avoidable if raised in defendants' [*2]moving brief below, and because the record is sufficient to resolve the issue ( see Chateau D'If Corp. v City of New York , 219 AD2d 205, 209-210 [1st Dept 1996], lv denied 88 NY2d 811 [1996]; see also Kapilevich v City of New York , 103 AD3d

2021Nevertheless, Supreme Court properly dismissed the fraud in the inducement claim as duplicative of the Board's breach of contract claim, and the Board cannot establish as a matter of law that it reasonably relied upon the Offering Plan's statements about the brand of toilet, type of roofing material, and existence of a lobby vestibule, as the unit purchasers had the means to ascertain the truth of the condition when they inspected the apartments and buildings ( Von Ancken at 441 ; see also Bernstein v Clermont Co. , 166 AD2d 247, 248 [1st Dept 1990]).

2021Nevertheless, Supreme Court properly dismissed the fraud in the inducement claim as duplicative of the Board's breach of contract claim, and the Board cannot establish as a matter of law that it reasonably relied upon the Offering Plan's statements about the brand of toilet, type of roofing material, and existence of a lobby vestibule, as the unit purchasers had the means to ascertain the truth of the condition when they inspected the apartments and buildings ( Von Ancken at 441 ; see also Bernstein v Clermont Co. , 166 AD2d 247, 248 [1st Dept 1990]).

2021These alleged misrepresentations consisted of mere puffery, opinions of value, or future expectations ( Sidamonidze v Kay , 304 AD2d 415 [1st Dept 2003]), and do not constitute material misstatements of present fact ( see EBC I, Inc. v Goldman Sachs & Co., 91 AD3d 211, 220 [1st Dept 2011]).

2017However, because it is pleaded on information and belief, this allegation is insufficient to state the claim (see Facebook, Inc. v DLA Piper LLP [US], 134 AD3d 610, 615 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 28 NY3d 903 [2016]).

2005In the context of a preanswer motion to dismiss in which the complaint also states a valid cause of action for fraud in the inducement, “recovery under the equitable doctrine of quantum meruit is not precluded in the event the contracts are voided.” (Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v Freed, 265 AD2d 938, 939 [4th Dept 1999].) Accordingly, as long as the fraud in the inducement claim remains in the case, the claim of unjust enrichment may coincide with an alternative breach of contract claim.