In Ambac Assur. v. Countrywide , 31 N.Y.3d 569, 579 (2018) ( here ), the Court of Appeals described the justifiable reliance requirement of a fraud claim as a “fundamental precept” of the cause of action. As such, the justifiable reliance requirement is considered to be a necessary tool to weed out fraud claims by plaintiffs who “are lax in protecting themselves”. See ACA Fin. Guar. Corp. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. , 25 N.Y.3d 1043, 1051 (2015) (Read, J., dissenting on other gro

There are five elements to a fraud claim: “(1) a material misrepresentation of a fact, (2) knowledge of its falsity, (3) an intent to induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and (5) damages.” Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 N.Y.3d 553, 559 (2009). A plaintiff alleging fraud must meet each element in order to prevail, whether it be on a motion or at trial. Menaco v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 213 A.D.2d 167 (1st Dept. 1995). The failure

As readers of this Blog know, we cover a broad range of issues that fall under the umbrella of commercial and business litigation. Two issues that often receive treatment from this Blog are the application of the statute of limitations to fraud-based claims, and the court’s ability to exercise jurisdiction over a defendant. Recently, Justice Saliann Scarpulla of the Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division, issued an opinion that involves both of these issues. Mago

It is well settled that stipulations of settlement are favored by the courts. Hallock v. State , 64 N.Y.2d 224, 230 (1984). Stipulations of settlement not only serve the interests of efficient dispute resolution but also are essential to the management of court calendars and integrity of the litigation process. Id . For these reasons, stipulations of settlement are not lightly cast aside. Id . See also Matter of Galasso , 35 N.Y.2d 319, 321 (1972). Notwithstanding, a stipula

Commercial litigation practitioners know that, as a general matter, courts will not permit a fraudulent inducement claim to survive a motion to dismiss when the claim arises from a breach of contract. Indeed, courts routinely dismiss a fraudulent inducement claim where “ he existence of a valid and enforceable written contract govern a particular subject matter” and the recovery sought arises out of the same facts and circumstances. Clark-Fitzpatrick v. Long Is. , 70 N.Y.2d

Statutes of limitations encourage plaintiffs to pursue the prosecution of their claims as soon as they are known. As the term implies, they are statutory mechanisms that limit the duration of a defendant’s liability for all types of alleged wrongdoing, e.g. , fraud, breach of fiduciary and negligence. These statutes “promote justice by preventing surprises through revival of claims that have been allowed to slumber until evidence has been lost, memories have faded, and witne

To plead a fraud or fraudulent inducement claim, a plaintiff must allege the following: “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by the defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury.” Pasternack v. Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings , 27 N.Y.3d 817, 827 (2016) (internal citations and quotation marks omi

The elements of a common law fraud claim are well known to readers of this Blog: to wit, a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff, and damages. Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 N.Y.3d 553 (2009). While the justifiable reliance and intent to deceive elements are frequently the focus of a defendant’s challenge, the falsity element can be front and center too, especial

In commercial and business litigation, it is common for plaintiffs to assert claims against a corporation ( e.g. , C-Corp. or an S-Corp.) or limited liability company (“LLC”) for wrongs committed by the entity. Often, plaintiffs will try to “pierce the corporate veil,” or get behind the corporate form, to hold the entity’s officers or members liable for the alleged wrongdoing. Since a plaintiff must show that an officer or member used his/her control over the entity to commi

It is not uncommon for practitioners to group multiple defendants together in a complaint when they are alleged to have collectively committed the wrong complained of. This form of pleading, commonly known as “group pleading,” generally runs afoul of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“Federal Rules”) and the Civil Practice Law and Rules (“CPLR”). This is particularly so in the context of fraud. Both the Federal Rules and the CPLR require a plaintiff to provide sufficient

As readers of this Blog know, one of the elements of a fraud claim is “justifiable reliance.” In Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. , 31 N.Y.3d 569 (2018), the New York Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of the justifiable reliance element, noting that it is a “fundamental precept” of a fraud claim and is critical to the success of such a claim. Determining whether a plaintiff justifiably relied on a misrepresentation or omission, however, is “alwa

Plaintiffs claiming that they have been the victims of fraud must satisfy heightened pleading standards to enter the courthouse. Under the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules, CPLR 3016(b), and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(b), the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud must be stated in detail. here).=">here</a>)."> Proving fraud in New York becomes even more difficult for plaintiffs – they must prove fraud by “clear and convincing evidence,” a high

Courts do not hesitate to dismiss fraud claims when they are merely contract claims “dressed in the garb of a fraud count.” Songbird Jet Ltd., Inc. v. Amax Inc. , 581 F. Supp. 912, 924 (S.D.N.Y. 1984). “It is well settled that a cause of action for fraud does not arise, where the only fraud alleged relates to a contracting party’s alleged intent to breach a contractual obligation.” ( Caniglia v. Chicago Tribune-New York News Syndicate Inc., 204 A.D.2d 233, 34 (1 st Dep’t

The Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”) ended the Government’s fiscal year with a flurry of proceedings and settled actions. In addition to the settled actions against Tesla Inc. and Elon Musk, the SEC filed or settled matters against retail brokers and investment advisors for violations of the securities laws and the rules promulgated thereunder. In today’s post, this Blog looks at some of these actions. Disclosure violations : On September 29, 2018

Fraud Claim Dismissed on Statute of Limitations Grounds: Plaintiff Unable to Use The Discovery Rule to Save His Claims Under New York law, an action based upon fraud must be commenced within six years of the date the cause of action accrued, or within two years of the time the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud with reasonable diligence, whichever is greater. C.P.L.R. § 213(8). See also Sargiss v. Magarelli , 12 N.Y.3d 527, 532 (2009); Carbon Capital Mgm

This Blog has previously written about the difficulties plaintiffs often have distinguishing between direct and derivative claims. ( Here and here .) In today’s post, this Blog looks at Khan v. Garg , 2018 N.Y. Slip Op. 31061(U) (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County, May 30, 2018) ( here ). In Khan , the court dismissed a fraud claim because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate whether the claim belonged to the plaintiff or his company. A Brief Primer on the Applicable Rules Where the wrong

A client contacts you about a potential fraud claim. The client tells you that because of alleged false statements, she decided to hold her securities rather than sell them. She says that as result of the false statements she was deprived of the opportunity to sell at a higher price and, therefore, suffered damages when the securities declined upon the disclosure of the truth. Does she have a case? Recently, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of the Supreme Court, New County,

On April 9, 2018, Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich of the Supreme Court, New York County, Commercial Division granted a motion for summary judgment involving claims that the defendant owed the plaintiff nearly $3.5 million in connection with investment in more than 800 derivatives transactions over a four-year period. In granting the motion, Justice Kornreich had some harsh words about the strength of the defenses proffered in opposition to the motion. INTL FCStone Mkts., LL

There is an old idiom that says: “the devil is in the details.” It generally means that although something may seem simple, the details are complicated and likely to cause problems. This aptly describes pleading a fraud claim under New York law. To state a claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege a material misrepresentation of fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and damages. Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & K

It’s an unfortunate fact of life that victims of natural disasters, such as Hurricanes Harvey and Irma, and those who try to help them, often become the targets of fraud. As the floodwaters recede and the clean-up effort begins, officials have sounded the alarm, warning victims and volunteers about this threat. On September 4, 2017, Corey Amundson (“Amundson”), the Acting United States Attorney for the Middle District of Louisiana and head of the National Center for Disaster