By: Jeffrey M. Haber In prior articles, this Blog examined CPLR § 3102, the statutory provision that permits pre-action disclosure. See here and here . We do so again in connection with our examination of the Matter of Khorassani v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 00354 (1st Dept. Jan. 25, 2024) ( here ). CPLR § 3102(c) provides that “ efore an action is commenced, disclosure to aid in bringing an action, to preserve information or to aid in arbi

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, we have written about the duplication doctrine on numerous occasions. E.g. , here , here , and here . Courts apply the doctrine when a plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim and a fraud claim that arise from the same facts and circumstances. In that regard, a fraud claim will be deemed duplicative of a contract claim when the fraud claim arises from the same facts, seeks the same damages and does not allege a breach of

By: Jeffrey M. Haber A common theme in commercial litigation is the assertion of a breach of contract claim and a fraudulent inducement claim. A plaintiff claiming a breach of contract must show (1) the existence of a contract; (2) the plaintiff’s performance under that agreement; (3) the defendant’s breach of its obligations; and (4) damages resulting from the breach. One of the provisions parties often include in their contract is a merger clause. A merger clause is a provi

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In many of the fraud cases that we examine, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant made an affirmative misrepresentation of fact upon which he/she relied. As we have often noted, fraud does not, however, always concern an affirmative statement. Sometimes a person can perpetrate a fraud through the omission of a material fact. Where fraud by omission is claimed, the plaintiff must allege that the defendant had a duty to disclose the omitted fact. A du

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is often said that a fiduciary owes the duties of care, loyalty and candor to the person with whom the fiduciary has a relationship. The duty of care requires the fiduciary to act as a reasonable and prudent person would act in a similar circumstance. The duty of loyalty requires the fiduciary to act in good faith and with the best interests of the person or entity with whom the fiduciary relationship exists. This means that the fiduciary must put the

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In past articles, we have examined a motion under CPLR § 3213 ( see , e.g. , here , here , here , here , and here ). CPLR § 3213 is a procedural mechanism that allows a party to make a motion for summary judgment before filing a complaint in actions based upon “an instrument for the payment of money only or a judgment.” The purpose of the statute “is to provide an accelerated procedure where liability for a certain sum is clearly established by the instru

By: Jeffrey M. Haber A recurring question that courts and litigants often encounter is how to apply the continuing wrong doctrine to a statute of limitations. Statutes of limitations restrict 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

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Columbia Consultants, LLC v. Danucht Entertainment, LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 06439 (1st Dept. Dec. 14, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed the issues in the title of this article: fraudulent inducement claims in the context of settlement agreements, broad releases and no reliance clauses. As discussed below, the Court found that the release at issue was broad enough to cover the alleged fraud claim and that the no relianc

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In TD Bank, N.A. v. Keenan , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 06158 (2d Dept. Nov. 29, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, Second Department examined the often “nettlesome” question of whether a plaintiff claiming fraud has satisfied the justifiable reliance element of the claim. As readers of this Blog know, we often write about fraud cases where the primary issue for the court to consider is the justifiable reliance element of the claim. We do so because of the i

By Jonathan H. Freiberger Many times, remedies for the breach of a contract other than monetary damages are necessary to make a plaintiff whole. One such remedy is specific performance [a topic previously addressed by this BLOG, inter alia , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> , < here =">here</a>"> < here =">here</a>"> and < here =">here</a>"> ]. The remedy of specific performance “will not be ordered where money damages would be adequate to protect the expectat

In Stagen v. Neu , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 06105 (1st Dept. Nov. 28, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed an issue of contract interpretation involving a word in a settlement agreement that most readers would think has a distinct and undisputed meaning – “employ”. As discussed below, the Court found an issue of fact as to what it means to be “employed” in the context of the record before it. The Court also touched upon the law surrounding third-party

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As we have often explained in the articles in which we have examined fraud claims, to withstand a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must plead fraud with particularity as required under CPLR § 3106(b), cannot lump all the defendants together so that the plaintiff runs afoul of the group pleading prohibition, and cannot duplicate a breach of contract claim with the fraud claim. Lerman v. 2211 Third Ave. Mazal Holdings LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 34092(U) (Sup.

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Barlow v. Skroupa , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05786 (1st Dept. Nov. 16, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of a fraud claim because the plaintiffs failed to plead fraud with particularity, as required under CPLR § 3016(b), and identify any specific misrepresentations of material fact. We examine Barlow below. Plaintiffs, who were employees and consultants of Inspire Summits LLC (“Inspire”), doing business as Skyt

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Document discovery is an integral part of any litigation. Documents form the foundation of discovery plans and strategies, and, more significantly, proof at trial. Consequently, litigants must search for, collect, and preserve their documents, particularly electronically stored information (“ESI”), from the moment they are aware of their involvement, or potential involvement, in a lawsuit ( i.e. , when there is a reasonable anticipation that a lawsuit may

By: Jeffrey M. Haber It is well-settled that a corporation (or limited liability company) acts through its officers, directors and owners. As a result, these individuals are normally not liable for the debts incurred by the corporation (or limited liability company). However, when an officer, director or shareholder abuses the corporate form to perpetrate a wrong or injustice against a third party, courts will intervene on behalf of the third party to hold the corporate actor

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, as in other jurisdictions, settlement agreements “are judicially favored, will not lightly be set aside,” and will be enforced “with rigor and without a searching examination into their substance.” 1 A court called upon to enforce a settlement must be satisfied that the agreement is “clear, final and the product of mutual accord.” 2 Thus, an out-of-court agreement settling an action is binding on each party to the agreement only if “it is i

By: Jeffrey M. Haber A couple of months ago, we examined NW Media Holdings Corp. v. IBT Media Inc. , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 30875(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County Mar. 22, 2023) ( here ), a case in which a lower court addressed the question whether the destruction of millions of pages of data on a Google Workspace states a claim for trespass to chattels or conversion ( here ). As discussed in that article, the court concluded that the allegations concerning the destruction of such data

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Negligent misrepresentation and fraudulent inducement are, to some extent, cut from the same cloth. Both causes of action involve false statements. Often, though not always, the failure to satisfy the elements of one of the claims will result in the failure to satisfy the elements of the other. In Borovina v. ACAP Fund GP, LLC , 2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 05115 (2d Dept. Oct. 11, 2023) (here), the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a

Under the relation-back doctrine, new parties may be joined as defendants in a previously commenced action, after the statute of limitations has expired on the claims against them. The doctrine is codified in CPLR 203.

As readers of this Blog know, one of the elements of a fraudulent inducement claim is “justifiable reliance.”