fraudulent inducement claim in New York

2022The fraudulent inducement claim is also not duplicative of the breach of contract claim, as the damages sought are no longer the same in view of our dismissal of the request for unpaid loan amounts above ( see generally MaÑas v VMS Assoc., LLC , 53 AD3d 451, 453-454 [1st Dept 2008]).

2022The fraudulent inducement claim is also not duplicative of the breach of contract claim, as the damages sought are no longer the same in view of our dismissal of the request for unpaid loan amounts above ( see generally MaÑas v VMS Assoc., LLC , 53 AD3d 451, 453-454 [1st Dept 2008]).

2024(Laduzinski v Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, 132 AD3d 164, 169 [1st Dept 2015] [citation omitted].) The "boilerplate language" of this merger clause "is too general to bar plaintiff's claim since it 'makes no reference to the particular misrepresentations allegedly made here by [defendants]."' (Id. [citation omitted].) Justifiable Reliance "To state a claim for fraudulent inducement, there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act on it, resulting in injury." (GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, 81 AD3d 77, 81 [1st D

2022Thus, these clauses do not preclude the use of parol evidence to establish the fraudulent inducement claim ( see Danann Realty Corp. v Harris , 5 NY2d 317, 320 [1959]; Laduzinski , 132 AD3d at 169 ).

2022Thus, these clauses do not preclude the use of parol evidence to establish the fraudulent inducement claim ( see Danann Realty Corp. v Harris , 5 NY2d 317, 320 [1959]; Laduzinski , 132 AD3d at 169 ).

2021Additionally, the peculiar knowledge exception to claims of fraudulent representation does not apply ( Danann Realty Corp. v Harris , 5 NY2d 317, 322 [1959]; Schumaker v Mather , 133 NY 590 , 596 [1892]; see also Jana L. v West 129th St.

2024The elements of a fraudulent inducement claim are "a knowing misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act on it, resulting in injury." GoSmile, Inc. v. Levine, 81 A.D.3d 77, 81 (1st Dept. 2010).

2024(Laduzinski v Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC, 132 AD3d 164, 169 [1st Dept 2015] [citation omitted].) The "boilerplate language" of this merger clause "is too general to bar plaintiff's claim since it 'makes no reference to the particular misrepresentations allegedly made here by [defendants]."' (Id. [citation omitted].) Justifiable Reliance "To state a claim for fraudulent inducement, there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act on it, resulting in injury." (GoSmile, Inc. v Levine, 81 AD3d 77, 81 [1st D

2020Thus, as the motion court properly found, the Court of Appeals recognized distinct measures of damages for the fraudulent inducement claim arising separately from the contract claims. [FN1] While a fraudulent inducement claim can be dismissed as duplicative of a breach of contract claim if it seeks the "same damages" ( Mosaic Caribe, Ltd. v AllSettled Group, Inc. , 117 AD3d 421, 422-423 [1st Dept 2014]), Countrywide has not established, as a matter of law, that the damages sought in connection with the fraud claim are the same as those sought in [*2]connection with the contract claims.

2019Thus, as the motion court properly found, the Court of Appeals recognized distinct measures of damages for the fraudulent inducement claim arising separately from the contract claims. [FN1] While a fraudulent inducement claim can be dismissed as duplicative of a breach of contract claim if it seeks the "same damages" ( Mosaic Caribe, Ltd. v AllSettled Group, Inc. , 117 AD3d 421, 422-423 [1st Dept 2014]), the Countrywide defendants here have not established, as a matter of law, that the damages sought in connection with the fraud claim are the same as those [*2]sought in connection with the con

2019The fraudulent inducement claim fails because the documentary evidence conclusively establishes that defendants' representation that they would always be organized as an ACDBE was not false ( see generally Braddock v Braddock , 60 AD3d 84, 86 [1st Dept 2009], appeal withdrawn 12 NY3d 780 [2009]).

2013Whether the plaintiff could justifiably rely on the false representation is an issue of fact (Black v Chittenden, 69 NY2d 665, 669 [1986]; Braddock v Braddock, 60 AD3d 84, 88 [1st Dept 2009]).

2014Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583, 584 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]; see also Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994, 995 [2013]; Bloss v Va’ad Harabonim of Riverdale, 203 AD2d 36, 37 [1994]).

2014Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583, 584 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]; see also Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994, 995 [2013]; Bloss v Va’ad Harabonim of Riverdale, 203 AD2d 36, 37 [1994]).

2014Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583, 584 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]; see also Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994, 995 [2013]; Bloss v Va’ad Harabonim of Riverdale, 203 AD2d 36, 37 [1994]).

2014Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583, 584 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]; see also Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994, 995 [2013]; Bloss v Va’ad Harabonim of Riverdale, 203 AD2d 36, 37 [1994]).

2014Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583, 584 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]; see also Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994, 995 [2013]; Bloss v Va’ad Harabonim of Riverdale, 203 AD2d 36, 37 [1994]).

2014Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583, 584 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]; see also Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994, 995 [2013]; Bloss v Va’ad Harabonim of Riverdale, 203 AD2d 36, 37 [1994]).

2014Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583, 584 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]; see also Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994, 995 [2013]; Bloss v Va’ad Harabonim of Riverdale, 203 AD2d 36, 37 [1994]).

2014Co., 37 NY2d 211, 217 [1975]; Steen v Bump, 233 AD2d 583, 584 [1996], lv denied 89 NY2d 808 [1997]; see also Warmhold v Zagarino, 106 AD3d 994, 995 [2013]; Bloss v Va’ad Harabonim of Riverdale, 203 AD2d 36, 37 [1994]).

2025Both stages involved the same alleged facts: "sophisticated, private parties" who engaged in the same "complex, bi-lateral commercial transactions." If defendants' arguments pertaining to the scope of Executive Law § 63(12) were persuasive, we would have dismissed the complaint in Trump I because the Attorney General would not have had the standing or capacity to pursue the case and would not have alleged "facts in support of an element of the claim" or "an enforceable right of recovery" ( Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc ., 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017] [motion court properly dismissed the

2025Both stages involved the same alleged facts: "sophisticated, private parties" who engaged in the same "complex, bi-lateral commercial transactions." If defendants' arguments pertaining to the scope of Executive Law § 63(12) were persuasive, we would have dismissed the complaint in Trump I because the Attorney General would not have had the standing or capacity to pursue the case and would not have alleged "facts in support of an element of the claim" or "an enforceable right of recovery" ( Connaughton v Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc ., 29 NY3d 137, 142 [2017] [motion court properly dismissed the

2013To make out the basic elements of a fraudulent inducement claim, a plaintiff must establish that the reliance on the false representation was justified (Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 98 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).

2013To make out the basic elements of a fraudulent inducement claim, a plaintiff must establish that the reliance on the false representation was justified (Global Mins. & Metals Corp. v Holme, 35 AD3d 93, 98 [1st Dept 2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 804 [2007]).

2025Corp. v GlobalFoundries US Inc. , 204 AD3d 441, 442 [1st Dept 2022] [permitting use of parol evidence to establish fraudulent inducement claim where "the various contracts' merger clauses [were] general, vague, and merely omnibus statements"]; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Wise Metals Group, LLC , 19 AD3d 273, 275 [1st Dept 2005] [holding that "only where the parties expressly disclaim reliance on the particular misrepresentations is extrinsic evidence barred" for purposes of a fraudulent inducement claim]).

2025Corp. v GlobalFoundries US Inc. , 204 AD3d 441 , 442 [1st Dept 2022] [permitting use of parol evidence to establish fraudulent inducement claim where "the various contracts' merger clauses [were] general, vague, and merely omnibus statements"]; Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Wise Metals Group, LLC , 19 AD3d 273, 275 [1st Dept 2005] [holding that "only where the parties expressly disclaim reliance on the particular misrepresentations is extrinsic evidence barred" for purposes of a fraudulent inducement claim]).

2024Group, Inc. v Isacsen, 114 AD2d 1022, 1022-23 [2d Dept 1985] [holding that absent a contention by plaintiff that it was the noteholder in due course, defendant could assert a fraudulent inducement defense].) Moreover, a “a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken . . . [b]y legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy or creditor’s sale.” (UCC 3-302 [a].) Il Mulino assigned the note to plaintiff in connection with the asset-purchase agreement that resulted from the bankruptcy proceedings.

2024Group, Inc. v Isacsen , 114 AD2d 1022, 1022-23 [2d Dept 1985] [holding that absent a [*4]contention by plaintiff that it was the noteholder in due course, defendant could assert a fraudulent inducement defense].) Moreover, a "a person does not acquire rights of a holder in due course of an instrument taken . . . [b]y legal process or by purchase in an execution, bankruptcy or creditor's sale." (UCC 3-302 [a].) Il Mulino assigned the note to plaintiff in connection with the asset-purchase agreement that resulted from the bankruptcy proceedings. ( See NYSCEF No. 6 at 1.) This court also conclude

2024MÓvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 NY3d 269, 276-279 [2011]).

2024MÓvil, S.A.B. de C.V. , 17 NY3d 269, 276-279 [2011]).

2023Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing the portion of plaintiff's first breach of contract claim involving the sale of antiques and the fraudulent inducement claim, due to plaintiff's failure to proffer an expert witness under the Commercial Division rules (22 NYCRR 202.70, Rule 13 [c]) who could opine about the authenticity of the items allegedly sold ( see Thome v Alexander & Louisa Calder Found., 70 AD3d 88, 98-99 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]; Nussberg v Tatintsian , 111 AD3d 441, 441 [1st Dept 2013]).

2023Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing the portion of plaintiff's first breach of contract claim involving the sale of antiques and the fraudulent inducement claim, due to plaintiff's failure to proffer an expert witness under the Commercial Division rules (22 NYCRR 202.70, Rule 13 [c]) who could opine about the authenticity of the items allegedly sold ( see Thome v Alexander & Louisa Calder Found., 70 AD3d 88, 98-99 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]; Nussberg v Tatintsian , 111 AD3d 441, 441 [1st Dept 2013]).

2023Socy. of U.S. , 83 NY2d 603, 613 [1994]).

2023Socy. of U.S. , 83 NY2d 603, 613 [1994]).

2023Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing the portion of plaintiff's first breach of contract claim involving the sale of antiques and the fraudulent inducement claim, due to plaintiff's failure to proffer an expert witness under the Commercial Division rules (22 NYCRR 202.70, Rule 13 [c]) who could opine about the authenticity of the items allegedly sold ( see Thome v Alexander & Louisa Calder Found., 70 AD3d 88, 98-99 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]; Nussberg v Tatintsian , 111 AD3d 441, 441 [1st Dept 2013]).

2023Supreme Court correctly granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing the portion of plaintiff's first breach of contract claim involving the sale of antiques and the fraudulent inducement claim, due to plaintiff's failure to proffer an expert witness under the Commercial Division rules (22 NYCRR 202.70, Rule 13 [c]) who could opine about the authenticity of the items allegedly sold ( see Thome v Alexander & Louisa Calder Found., 70 AD3d 88, 98-99 [1st Dept 2009], lv denied 15 NY3d 703 [2010]; Nussberg v Tatintsian , 111 AD3d 441, 441 [1st Dept 2013]).

2023Co. of N.Y. v Moskowitz , 17 AD3d 289, 293 [1st Dept 2005]).

2023Co. of N.Y. v Moskowitz , 17 AD3d 289, 293 [1st Dept 2005]).

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]).

2021However, a cause of action for breach of contract "cannot be converted into one for fraud by merely alleging that defendant did not intend to fulfill the contract" ( Non-Linear Trading Co. v BraddisAssoc. , 243 AD2d 107, 118 [1st Dept 1998]).

2021However, a cause of action for breach of contract "cannot be converted into one for fraud by merely alleging that defendant did not intend to fulfill the contract" ( Non-Linear Trading Co. v BraddisAssoc. , 243 AD2d 107, 118 [1st Dept 1998]).

2021The Board's fraudulent inducement claim is not preempted by the Martin Act because it is based upon allegations of affirmative misrepresentations, not omissions ( Von Ancken v 7 E. 14 L.L.C. , 171 AD3d 440 , 441 [2019]; see Board of Mgrs. of the S. Star v WSA Equities, LLC , 140 AD3d 405, 405 [1st Dept 2016]).

2021The Board's fraudulent inducement claim is not preempted by the Martin Act because it is based upon allegations of affirmative misrepresentations, not omissions ( Von Ancken v 7 E. 14 L.L.C. , 171 AD3d 440 , 441 [2019]; see Board of Mgrs. of the S. Star v WSA Equities, LLC , 140 AD3d 405, 405 [1st Dept 2016]).

2018Plaintiffs properly pled that, as a result of these statements, which plaintiffs allege were made with the intention to deceive them, they signed the lease and developed the property ( id. ; White v Davidson , 150 AD3d 610, 611 [1st Dept 2017]).

2018The fraudulent inducement claim was correctly dismissed because the merger clause in the release is not a general merger clause but by its express terms supersedes "any prior term sheet or correspondence," which is the basis for plaintiff's claims ( compare White v Davidson , 150 AD3d 610, 612 [1st Dept 2017]; Remediation Capital Funding LLC v Noto , 147 AD3d 469, 471 [1st Dept 2017]; Laduzinski v Alvarez & Marsal Taxand LLC , 132 AD3d 164, 169 [1st Dept 2015]).

2024Plaintiff contends that the note’s merger clause “precludes GFB’s purported reliance on non-contractual statements—and particularly those of non-parties to the GFB note.” (NYSCEF No. 21 at 6.) But a merger clause is insufficient to bar a claim for fraudulent inducement where “it makes no reference to the particular misrepresentations allegedly made by [defendants].” (LibertyPointe Bank v 75 E. 125th St., LLC, 95 AD3d 706 [1st Dept 2012].) The note’s merger clause states that “[t]his Note embodies the entire agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings

2024Plaintiff contends that the note's merger clause "precludes GFB's purported reliance on non-contractual statements—and particularly those of non-parties to the GFB note." (NYSCEF No. 21 at 6.) But a merger clause is insufficient to bar a claim for fraudulent inducement where "it makes no reference to the particular misrepresentations allegedly made by [defendants]." ( LibertyPointe Bank v 75 E. 125th St., LLC , 95 AD3d 706 [1st Dept 2012].) The note's merger clause states that "[t]his Note embodies the entire agreement of the parties hereto and supersedes all prior agreements and understanding

2017In a fraudulent inducement claim, the alleged misrepresentation should be one of then-present fact, which would be extraneous to the contract and involve a duty separate from or in addition to that imposed by the contract ( see Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc. , 68 NY2d 954 [1986]), and not merely a misrepresented intent to perform ( see Hawthorne Group, LLC v RRE Ventures , 7 AD3d 320 , 323-324 [1st Dept. 2004]).

2017In a fraudulent inducement claim, the alleged misrepresentation should be one of then-present fact, which would be extraneous to the contract and involve a duty separate from or in addition to that imposed by the contract ( see Deerfield Communications Corp. v Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc. , 68 NY2d 954 [1986]), and not merely a misrepresented intent to perform ( see Hawthorne Group, LLC v RRE Ventures , 7 AD3d 320 , 323-324 [1st Dept. 2004]).