In Pizzarotti, LLC v. Phipps & Co. , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50696(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County June 17, 2020) ( here ), Justice Gerald Lebovits of the Supreme Court, New York County, recently addressed a number of issues that we often examine, among them, a motion to dismiss on the basis of documentary evidence, breach of contract and common-law indemnification. We examine these issues and Pizzarotti below. Dismissal on the Basis of Documentary Evidence Under CPLR § 3211(a), a par

Just recently, we wrote about the importance of pleading fraud with particularity ( here ). As readers of this Blog know, when fraud is alleged, the plaintiff must plead the claim with particularity. Under CPLR § 3016 (b), the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with sufficient detail “to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct.” Pludeman v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc. , 10 N.Y.3d 486, 491 (2008) (citation omitted). To satisfy the particularity requi

In today’s post we examine, SHIR Capital, LLC v. Fortress Credit Advisors LLC , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31825(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County June 11, 2020) ( here ), a case involving an alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation of trade secrets. We chose to SHIR Capital because of its common theme – pleading with particularity. As discussed below, pleading fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and the misappropriation of trade secrets requires particularity or specifici

What law should apply? In most cases, answering the question is more art than science. In contract cases, especially in complex commercial matters, the agreement at issue often (though not always) contains a choice of law provision. In that circumstance, the agreement will provide that any disputes related to the contract and/or its performance will be litigated under the laws of the jurisdiction identified in the contract. When there is no choice of law provision, a more co

Pleading fraud with particularity is not easy. Sometimes the information needed to satisfy the requirement is peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant. Other times, the information needed is found in lawsuits, publicly available information and media. Regardless of where the information can be found, the plaintiff must nevertheless provide sufficient facts to support a “reasonable inference” that the allegations of fraud are true. Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & K

As readers of this Blog know, one of the elements of a fraud claim is reliance. In the typical case, the defendant makes a false or misleading statement directly to the plaintiff, which the plaintiff claims to rely on. In the less frequent case, the misrepresentation of fact is made to a third party that relied on the alleged fraudulent statement. The question is whether, in that circumstance, a plaintiff can state a fraud cause of action, despite the absence of direct relian

On December 31, 2018, this Blog posted an article, titled “Court Dismisses Complaint Charging Misappropriation of Intellectual Property on Summary Judgment.” ( Here .) The case that we examined in that article, Hyperlync Techs., Inc. v. Verizon Sourcing LLC , 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 33123(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Dec. 5, 2018) (here), involved allegations that the defendant, Verizon Sourcing, LLC (“Verizon”), disclosed confidential information to Synchronoss Technologies, Inc. (“

It has been a long time since this Blog examined a request for a pre-judgment order of attachment. ( See here .) Today, we take another look at this provisional remedy. What is Prejudgment Attachment? Prejudgment attachment is a provisional remedy that provides a plaintiff with a statutory mechanism by which he/she can secure a defendant’s assets during the pendency of a lawsuit. In effect, an order of attachment is a lien against the defendant’s property. As such, a prejudg

In prior posts ( e.g. , here and here ), we have discussed the importance of pleading loss causation in fraud and fraud-related actions. Where causation is an issue, the cases show that plaintiffs often have difficulty demonstrating the components necessary to withstand a motion to dismiss ( e.g. , here ). There are two components to the causation element: transaction causation and loss causation. “Transaction causation means that the violations in question caused the to en

Successfully pleading a fraud-in-the-inducement claim in the context of an employment at will relationship is difficult, if not impossible. The reason, as is often the case in non-employment cases, has to do with pleading justifiable reliance. Employees at will are generally unable to establish reasonable reliance on a prospective employer’s representations. Recently, Justice Peter P. Sweeney of the Supreme Court, Kings County reiterated this principle by granting summary jud

An appraisal is the valuation of property, such as a business, stock in a private company, real estate, collectibles, antiques, or other valuables, by an authorized (and neutral) person. Appraisals are used in many types of transactions. Business men and women typically seek an appraisal when they sell their business, they gift or transfer their ownership interest in the business or property, they make changes to the composition of their business, such as by adding partners o

This Blog has examined cases involving the duty to disclose information, often in the context of an alleged omission ( E.g. , here ). In today’s article, we primarily look at the duty to another in the context of negligence and negligent misrepresentation causes of action. Shavolian v. Donegan , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31181(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County May 5, 2020) ( here ). Negligence and Negligent Misrepresentation To establish a cause of action sounding in negligence, a plaintiff

Statutes of limitations limit the time within which a defendant can be held liability for all types of alleged wrongdoing. Plaintiffs who do not pursue their rights within the limitations period will find the courthouse doors closed to their claims. For this reason, whether the statute of limitations has run is an important issue for a lawyer and client to discuss. This Blog often examines the statute of limitations in the context of fraud and contract actions. In today’s art

On October 30, 2019, we posted an article, titled “How Short Is Too Short?” ( here ). The article examined the enforceability of a contractual provision that shortened the statute of limitations in a non-payment litigation. In today’s article, we revisit the issue with our examination of Murphy v. Williams , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 31009(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County April. 23, 2020) ( here ), a case involving a breach of contract claim. The Law It is well settled that parties are fr

It has been some time since this Blog examined claims for indemnification and contribution ( See , e.g. , here and here ). In today’s post, we get the opportunity to examine these principles once more through our examination of Allergan Fin., LLC v. Pfizer Inc. , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 50422(U) (Sup. Ct. Apr. 13, 2020) ( here ). Allergan involved a claim for indemnification and other related claims arising out of an Asset Purchase Agreement (the “APA”), dated December 17, 2008,

As baseball fans know, Major League Baseball (“MLB”) was rocked by the sign-stealing scandal involving the Houston Astros and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the Boston Red Sox. Not only did opposing players feel cheated by the Astros’ conduct – just ask any player on the Yankees how he feels about losing to the Astros in the playoffs, but so did the fans. Indeed, during spring training (before the league shutdown because of the COVID-19 pandemic), fans could be heard booing an

Too often, a plaintiff claiming breach of contract fails to identify the provision(s) of the contract alleged to have been breached, let alone that the fact that a contract was formed in the first place. While this seems elementary, the law reporters are brimming with cases where the plaintiff failed to do the foregoing. Indeed, this Blog recently wrote about case in which the plaintiff failed to identify the provision of the contract alleged to have been breached. ( Here .)

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases decided by the Appellate Division, First Department: Knox, LLC v. Lakian , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02255 (1st Dept. Apr. 9, 2020) ( here ), and WCapital Invs. LLC v CWCapital Cobalt VR Ltd. , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02240 (1st Dept. Apr. 9, 2020) ( here ). Knox concerned the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim and WCapital Invs. concerned the damages element of a fraud claim. Hints of Falsity New York law imposes an affirmative

The New York State Court System On April 7, 2020, Chief Administrative Judge Lawrence K. Marks issued a memorandum to all trial court justices and judges advising them that, starting on Monday, April 13, 2020, the courts will begin to open their doors, albeit remotely, “for non-essential pending cases” – i.e. , “tort (including medical practice and asbestos), commercial, matrimonial, trusts and estates, and other categories of cases.” ( Here .) To this end, judges are being a

It is not often that the Court of Appeals issues an opinion about the same statute within a short period of time. But, in the span of nine days, the Court issued two opinions addressing General Business Law § 349. On March 24, 2020, the Court of Appeals decided Plavin v. Group Health Inc. , 2020 N.Y. Slip Op. 02025 (Mar. 24, 2020) ( here ), a case in which the Court was asked to decide whether an insurance company’s alleged misstatements and omissions about its insurance pla