negligent misrepresentation claim in New York

2025Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky , 8 NY3d 144, 148 [2007]).

2025Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky , 8 NY3d 144, 148 [2007]).

2026The relationship between a landlord and tenant, standing alone, does not create the kind of fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary duty required to sustain a negligent misrepresentation claim (see Kimmell, 89 NY2d at 263–264).

2023These allegations sufficiently state the elements of a negligence claim and of a negligent misrepresentation claim ( see Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; see also generally Kimmell v Schaefer , 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]; Ossining Union Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson , 73 NY2d 417, 424-426 [1989]).

2024With respect to the sixth cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, because TC Havemeyer's fiduciary relationship with the Individual Plaintiffs extended to the solicitation of additional investments into Havemeyer, TC Havemeyer was in "a special position of confidence and trust with" the Individual Plaintiffs, who are the only plaintiffs on the negligent misrepresentation claim ( Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 16 NY3d 173, 180 [2011] [internal quotation marks omitted]).

2023While the question of whether a special relationship exists is generally a question of fact ( Kimmell , 89 NY2d at 264 ), where the claimant's allegations, accepted as true and given every reasonable inference, fail to plead the existence of a special relationship, a negligent misrepresentation claim is subject to pre-answer dismissal ( Mandarin Trading Ltd. , 16 NY3d at 181 ).

2014With regard to the negligent misrepresentation claim, “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust . . . and an arm’s length borrower-lender relationship . . . does not support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation” (Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v HSBC Bank USA, 17 NY3d 565, 578 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Flaherty Funding Corp. v Johnson, 105 AD3d 1445, 1446 [2013]; Dobroshi v Bank of Am., N.A., 65 AD3d 882,

2014With regard to the negligent misrepresentation claim, “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust . . . and an arm’s length borrower-lender relationship . . . does not support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation” (Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v HSBC Bank USA, 17 NY3d 565, 578 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Flaherty Funding Corp. v Johnson, 105 AD3d 1445, 1446 [2013]; Dobroshi v Bank of Am., N.A., 65 AD3d 882,

2025Accepting the allegations as true, Plaintiff adequately alleged negligent misrepresentation by stating that Defendants knew or should have known their products were unsafe yet failed to disclose the dangers to Plaintiff, who relied on Defendants' omissions when she decided to purchase their products (see also Standish-Parkin v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 12 AD3d 301, 302-303 [1st Dept 2004]).

2025Accepting the allegations as true, Plaintiff adequately alleged negligent misrepresentation by stating that Defendants knew or should have known their products were unsafe yet failed to disclose the dangers to Plaintiff, who relied on Defendants' omissions when she decided to purchase their products (see also Standish-Parkin v Lorillard Tobacco Co., 12 AD3d 301, 302-303 [1st Dept 2004]).

2015Thus, as defendant correctly contends, the negligent misrepresentation claim fails as a matter of law (see Breen v Law Off. of Bruce A. Barket, P.C., 52 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2008]; Automatic Findings v Miller, 232 AD2d 245, 246 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 804 [1997]).

2015Thus, as defendant correctly contends, the negligent misrepresentation claim fails as a matter of law (see Breen v Law Off. of Bruce A. Barket, P.C., 52 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2008]; Automatic Findings v Miller, 232 AD2d 245, 246 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 804 [1997]).

2015Thus, as defendant correctly contends, the negligent misrepresentation claim fails as a matter of law (see Breen v Law Off. of Bruce A. Barket, P.C., 52 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2008]; Automatic Findings v Miller, 232 AD2d 245, 246 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 804 [1997]).

2015Thus, as defendant correctly contends, the negligent misrepresentation claim fails as a matter of law (see Breen v Law Off. of Bruce A. Barket, P.C., 52 AD3d 635, 636-637 [2008]; Automatic Findings v Miller, 232 AD2d 245, 246 [1996], lv denied 90 NY2d 804 [1997]).

2014With regard to the negligent misrepresentation claim, “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust . . . and an arm’s length borrower-lender relationship . . . does not support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation” (Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v HSBC Bank USA, 17 NY3d 565, 578 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Flaherty Funding Corp. v Johnson, 105 AD3d 1445, 1446 [2013]; Dobroshi v Bank of Am., N.A., 65 AD3d 882,

2014With regard to the negligent misrepresentation claim, “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust . . . and an arm’s length borrower-lender relationship . . . does not support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation” (Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v HSBC Bank USA, 17 NY3d 565, 578 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Flaherty Funding Corp. v Johnson, 105 AD3d 1445, 1446 [2013]; Dobroshi v Bank of Am., N.A., 65 AD3d 882,

2014With regard to the negligent misrepresentation claim, “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust . . . and an arm’s length borrower-lender relationship . . . does not support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation” (Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v HSBC Bank USA, 17 NY3d 565, 578 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Flaherty Funding Corp. v Johnson, 105 AD3d 1445, 1446 [2013]; Dobroshi v Bank of Am., N.A., 65 AD3d 882,

2014With regard to the negligent misrepresentation claim, “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust . . . and an arm’s length borrower-lender relationship . . . does not support a cause of action for negligent misrepresentation” (Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v HSBC Bank USA, 17 NY3d 565, 578 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Flaherty Funding Corp. v Johnson, 105 AD3d 1445, 1446 [2013]; Dobroshi v Bank of Am., N.A., 65 AD3d 882,

2023These allegations sufficiently state the elements of a negligence claim and of a negligent misrepresentation claim ( see Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; see also generally Kimmell v Schaefer , 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]; Ossining Union Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson , 73 NY2d 417, 424-426 [1989]).

2001Under this basic theory, in Ossining Union Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson ( 73 NY2d 417 ), a school district was permitted to proceed with a negligent misrepresentation claim against engineering consultants although the engineers had been hired, not by the school district, but by an architectural firm conducting an evaluation of its buildings.

2012Addressing first the negligent misrepresentation claim, it is well settled that “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust with the injured party such that reliance on the negligent misrepresentation is justified” (Kimmell v Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 263 ; see Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v HSBC Bank USA, 17 NY3d 565, 578 ; Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 270 ).

2012Addressing first the negligent misrepresentation claim, it is well settled that “liability for negligent misrepresentation has been imposed only on those persons who possess unique or specialized expertise, or who are in a special position of confidence and trust with the injured party such that reliance on the negligent misrepresentation is justified” (Kimmell v Schaefer, 89 NY2d 257, 263 [19963; see Greenberg, Trager & Herbst, LLP v HSBC Bank USA, 17 NY3d 565, 578 [2011]; Murphy v Kuhn, 90 NY2d 266, 270 [1997]).

2009Because of the majority’s misplaced reliance upon Parrott v Coopers & Lybrand ( 95 NY2d 479, 483 [2000]), a case not cited by either party, in order to justify its reversal in this case and its rejection of our decision in Board of Mgrs. of Astor Terrace Condominium v Schuman, Lichtenstein, Claman & Efron ( 183 AD2d 488, 489 [1992]), which it erroneously claims “is in direct conflict with Court of Appeals precedent,” namely Parrott , I dissent and would affirm the denial of defendant Cosentini Associates’s motion to dismiss the negligent misrepresentation claim against it.

2001Upon the basic premise established in Ultramares (supra), a negligent misrepresentation claim was dismissed in Parrott v Coopers & Lybrand (supra), in which a terminated employee whose company stock was to be repurchased by the company at a value set in the company’s most recent bi-annual valuation report, challenged the manner in which the employer’s accounting firm, Coopers & Lybrand, arrived at the valuation (see, 95 NY2d 479 , supra).

2026To the extent the claim is based on MSHP's alleged statement that plaintiff was already onboarded with certain insurers when she was not, plaintiff's conclusory allegation that MSHP knew that its representation was false "is indefinite and conclusory, and therefore not actionable" (<i>Pacnet Network Ltd. v KKDI Corp.</i>, 78 AD3d 478, 479 [1st Dept 2010]; <i>see</i> CPLR 3016[b]).

2026The negligent misrepresentation claim against MSHP was also properly dismissed because the complaint fails to allege that the parties had a special relationship (<i>see Greentech Research LLC v Wissman</i>, 104 AD3d 540, 540 [1st Dept 2013]).</p> <p>Moreover, the complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud against MSHP.

2025A cause of action based upon negligent misrepresentation requires not only carelessness in imparting words upon which others rely to their damage, but also that such information be expressed directly , with knowledge or notice that it will be acted upon, to one whom the author is bound by some relation of duty, arising out of contract or otherwise, to act with care if he [or she] acts at all." (Internal quotations and citations omitted; emphasis added) Like the fraud claim, the negligent misrepresentation claim is collateral to the breach of contract claim, since the representation was made to

2025A cause of action based upon negligent misrepresentation requires not only carelessness in imparting words upon which others rely to their damage, but also that such information be expressed directly , with knowledge or notice that it will be acted upon, to one whom the author is bound by some relation of duty, arising out of contract or otherwise, to act with care if he [or she] acts at all." (Internal quotations and citations omitted; emphasis added) Like the fraud claim, the negligent misrepresentation claim is collateral to the breach of contract claim, since the representation was made to

2023These allegations sufficiently state the elements of a negligence claim and of a negligent misrepresentation claim ( see Solomon v City of New York , 66 NY2d 1026, 1027 [1985]; see also generally Kimmell v Schaefer , 89 NY2d 257, 264 [1996]; Ossining Union Free School Dist. v Anderson LaRocca Anderson , 73 NY2d 417, 424-426 [1989]).

2019Realty Corp. , 22 AD3d 274, 278 [1st Dept 2005]).

2017Protection Corp. v BDO Seidman, 95 NY2d 702, 711-712 [2001]).

2017Under the circumstances, the Court is constrained to conclude that the claim is governed by a six-year statute of limitations as well as the two-year discovery rule ( see People Care , 141 AD3d at 790). [FN13] With the exception of the claim against Cool, the negligent misrepresentation claims accrued no later than December 31, 2007.

2017Under the circumstances, the Court is constrained to conclude that the claim is governed by a six-year statute of limitations as well as the two-year discovery rule ( see People Care , 141 AD3d at 790). [FN13] With the exception of the claim against Cool, the negligent misrepresentation claims accrued no later than December 31, 2007.

2015The court held the claim was “immune from review,” because the duty owed was “one owed to the general public.” Citing Donohue and Hoffman , the court stated that “a cause of action based on negligent misrepresentation in the educational context is precluded.” {Id.) The Federal District Court in Moy v Adelphi Inst., Inc. also disallowed the plaintiffs’ negligent misrepresentation claim, even though it acknowledged that it was “not required to review any discretionary actions taken as a result of Defendant’s professional judgment.” ( 866 F Supp 696, 707 [ED NY 1994], quoting Village Community Sc