Fraud

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Lopez v. O’Sullivan , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 32178(U) (Sup. Ct., Suffolk County) ( here ), the court declined to dismiss fraud claims, among others, finding that plaintiff sufficiently stated a claim for such relief against the defendants. The court determined that plaintiff provided detailed allegations of misrepresentations made by defendants, which induced him to enter into transactions that ultimately deprived him of ownership of his property. In doin

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In One River Run Acquisition, LLC v. Milde , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03653 (1st Dept. June 17, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department reinstated counterclaims for fraud and fraudulent transfers after they had been dismissed at the motion court level. The case arose from a failed joint venture between One River Run Acquisition, LLC (“ORRA”) and Greenwich Group International LLC (“GGI”) to develop a luxury resort in Colorado. In its countercla

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Skyview Capital, LLC v. Conduent Business Servs., LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03291 (1st Dept. June 03, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department addressed various issues concerning fraud causes of action with which readers of this Blog are familiar: the duplication doctrine, justifiable reliance and disclaimer clauses. As discussed below, Skyview Capital arose from defendant’s sale to plaintiff of certain assets, namely, customer care ca

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Yudkin v. Evergreen Terrace 888 Corp. , 2025 NY Slip Op 03223 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025) ( here ), and Lapin v. Verner , 2025 NY Slip Op 03184 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025) ( here ). Yudkin involved the statute of limitations for fraud and the continuing wrong doctrine. Lapin involved the failure to plead the elements of a fraud claim. Yudkin v. Evergree Terrace 888 Corp. “A defendant who moves to dismiss a complaint pursuant

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber A claim for fraud requires “a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by the plaintiff and damages.” In First Trinity Life Ins. Co. v. Advance Funding LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03133 (1st Dept. May 22, 2025) ( here ), discussed below, knowledge of falsity ( i.e. , scienter) and reliance were the elements at issue. First Trinity concerned the assignment of lottery winnings. A form

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Tiburcio v. Grant Ave. Bronx Realty Corp. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 02669 (1st Dept. May 01, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department was asked to decide whether the statute of limitations expired on all causes of action alleged by the plaintiff or whether the continuing wrong doctrine applied to toll the applicable limitations periods. As discussed below, the Court held that the continuing wrong doctrine to did not apply to save the compla

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On July 8, 2019, this Blog wrote an article titled, “First Department Unanimously Affirms Denial of Motion to Compel Arbitration and Motion to Dismiss Fraud Claims” ( here ). The article examined the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department in BML Properties Ltd. v. China Construction America Inc. , 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 05339 (1st Dept. July 2, 2019), in which the Court (as the title states) affirmed the denial of a motion to compel arbitration

By: Jeffrey M. Haber On April 3, 2025, the Appellate Division, First Department considered an appeal of the dismissal of a complaint involving the disputed authenticity of a painting (the “Work”) by the deceased artist Cy Twombly (“Twombly”). In Grosso v. Cy Twombly Found. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 02007 (Apr. 03, 2025) ( here ), the Court unanimously affirmed the motion court’s dismissal of a complaint brought by the child of a parent who purchased works of art, including the Wor

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber To state a claim for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by 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.” The claim must pleaded with particularity. Conclusory allegations will not suffice. Neither will allegations based on information and

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Crawford v. Integrated Asset Mgt. Servs., LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01352 (2d Dept. Mar. 12, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, Second Department reversed the denial of the defendants’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims, among others, involving a home improvement project in Brooklyn, N.Y., on the grounds of duplication with the plaintiff’s breach of contract claims. Crawford is notable because the Court held that the fraud damage

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In Imperium Blue Acquisition Partners, LLC v. Marathon Asset Mgt., L.P. , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01317 (1st Dept. Mar. 11, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department was asked to consider whether, among other things, plaintiffs satisfied the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim. As discussed below, the Court held that plaintiffs failed to do so. In Essential Home Remodeling, Inc. v. Rossin , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 01314 (1st Dept. Mar. 11,

By: Jeffrey M. Haber “The elements of a cause of action for fraud require a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge of its falsity, an intent to induce reliance, justifiable reliance by plaintiff and damages.  A claim rooted in fraud must be pleaded with the requisite particularity under CPLR 3016(b).” The failure to satisfy each element will result in dismissal of the claim. As this Blog has noted in several articles, many cases involving an alleged fraud often rise

By: Jeffrey M. Haber Pre-IPO investing involves buying a stake in a company before the company makes its initial public offering of securities. Many stock promoters invite potential investors to invest in a pre-IPO offering by providing an opportunity to make high returns in a start-up enterprise on the ground floor. While investing at the pre-IPO stage can be rewarding, it involves risk for investors, including the risk of complete loss – i.e. , that the investor can lose h

By: Jeffrey M. Haber As readers of this Blog know, to recover damages for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by 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.” The element that most often spells failure for a plaintiff is reasonable reliance – that is, reliance on

By: Jeffrey M. Haber We have written frequently about the substance and scope of general releases.  In New York, “a valid release constitutes a complete bar to an action on a claim which is the subject of the release.” If “the language of a release is clear and unambiguous, the signing of a release is a ‘jural act’ binding on the parties.” For this reason, “ release should never be converted into a starting point for … litigation except under circumstances and under rules

By: Jeffrey M. Haber In New York, litigants often grapple with the appropriate limitation period to apply to breach of fiduciary claims. There is no single statute of limitations that the courts and the parties can look to. “Rather, the choice of the applicable limitations period depends on the substantive remedy that the plaintiff seeks.” “Where the remedy sought is purely monetary in nature, courts construe the suit as alleging ‘injury to property’ within the meaning of CP

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In Katsorhis v. 718 W. Beech St, LLC , 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 00211 (1st Dept. Jan. 15, 2025) ( here ), the Appellate Division, Second Department considered a fraud claim that the lower court sustained on the grounds that defendant failed to raise an issue of fact about a fact that was not a fact in dispute. The Court also considered whether the motion court erred in denying defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ claims alleging violations of General Busi

By: Jeffrey M. Haber CPLR 3025(b) provides, in pertinent part, that “ party may amend his or her pleading … at any time by leave of court or by stipulation of all parties.” Importantly, CPLR 3025(b) provides that “ eave shall be freely given.…” Thus, “unless the proposed amendment would unfairly prejudice or surprise the opposing party, or is palpably insufficient or patently devoid of merit,” the motion for leave to amend should be granted. Prejudice may be found where “th

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber The justifiable reliance element has been described as a “fundamental precept” and a “venerable rule”. The requirement is one of the five elements of a fraud cause of action: (1) a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact; (2) which was false and known to be false by the defendant(s); (3) made for the purpose of inducing another person to rely upon it; (4) justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission; an

By:  Jeffrey M. Haber In today’s article, we revisit some familiar principles concerning claims of fraudulent inducement. We will also examine the impact of a contractual exculpatory clause on the viability of a fraud claim, as well as the impact of contractual provision that negates the basis for a fraud claim. Our examination of these issues and principles is centered on MREF REIT Lender 2 LLC v. FPG Maiden Holdings LLC , 2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 06161 (1st Dept. Dec. 10, 2024) (