In Delgado v. 27-51 Jackson Ave. LLC, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 05593 (1st Dept. Oct. 1, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department reaffirmed that fraud claims must be based on particularized facts, not suspicion, guilt by association, or allegations from other lawsuits. The Court held that unproven accusations in separate actions were insufficient to establish that the plaintiff made any misrepresentation.

In Franco v. Berger, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 05472 (1st Dept. Sept. 29, 2026), the plaintiff sought to recover for the death of Coco, a 3.8-pound Yorkshire Terrier who allegedly underwent a dental procedure only after defendants made specific representations concerning who would perform the surgery, who would administer anesthesia, and the safety precautions that would be employed.

On April 14, 2026, the Appellate Division, First Department issued a decision in which it reiterated the limits of fraud claims in the corporate governance context. In Massoumi v. Ganju, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 02208 (1st Dept. Apr. 14, 2026), the Court unanimously affirmed summary judgment dismissing fraud claims brought by a former chief executive officer who alleged that his fellow executives and directors misled him in advance of a board meeting that resulted in his removal.

In today’s article, we examine the elements and heightened pleading requirements for fraudulent inducement claims under New York law, with a focus on the justifiable reliance element.

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving different issues impacting a fraud claim. In RSD857, LLC v. Wright, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06833 (1st Dept. Dec. 09, 2025), we examine the actionability of appraisals. In Olshan Frome Wolosky, LLP v. Kestenbaum, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06816 (Dec. 09, 2025), we examine the duplication doctrine.

In Sire Spirits, LLC v. Beam Suntory, Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 06297 (1st Dept. Nov. 18, 2025), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the denial of a motion to amend a complaint seeking damages for “diminution of enterprise value” due to the alleged fraud.

In New York, as in most jurisdictions, statutes of limitation serve as a cutoff point for initiating legal action. In business litigation, parties often encounter statutes of limitation issues involving, inter alia, breach of fiduciary duty and fraud claims.

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.”

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

A “recurring question” New York courts grapple with is whether the facts alleged in a complaint give rise to claims for both breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.

By Jeffrey M. Haber On November 3, 2016, the Appellate Division, First Department revived a case against J.P. Morgan Securities LLC and JPMorgan Chase & Co., the parent company of Bear Stearns & Co. Inc. (“Bear Stearns”), that had been dismissed over losses that the plaintiff, Aozora Bank, Ltd. (“Aozora”), a Japanese lender, suffered after investing in collateralized debt obligations (“CDOs”) it claims Bears Stearns used as a “dumping ground” for its most toxic, risky assets.

By Jeffrey M. Haber, a partner at Freiberger Haber LLP On May 31, 2016, the Appellate Division, First Department, issued MP Cool Investments Ltd. v. Forkosh, 2016 NY Slip Op. 05944, a case involving allegations of fraud in connection with the production and sale of a commercial heating and ventilation system by an Israeli-based company. In the decision, the First Department unanimously affirmed the motion court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s fraud claims because they were not