Summary judgment in lieu of a complaint under CPLR 3213 was central to the decision in Newmark Partners, L.P. v. Singer, 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 03923 (1st Dept. June 23, 2026), the subject of today’s article, where the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the enforcement of a settlement agreement arising from a failed $13 million transaction.

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 BH 336 Partners LLC v. Sentinel Real Estate Corp., 2026 N.Y. Slip Op. 00305 (1st Dept. Jan. 22, 2026), the Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order denying in part a motion to dismiss a complaint containing fraud and fraudulent‑inducement claims arising from Plaintiffs’ purchases of five Manhattan buildings.

“[A] release that, by its terms, extinguishes liability on any and all claims arising in connection with specified matters is deemed to encompass claims of fraud relating to those matters, even if the release does not specifically refer to fraud and was not granted in settlement of an actually asserted fraud claim.

In Wilburger v. Ava Labs, Inc., 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 51072(U) (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County July 3, 2025) (here), plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and fraudulent inducement related to unpaid compensation for services rendered under an Independent Contractor Agreement.

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, “[a] release should never be converted into a starting point for … litigation except under circumstances and under rules which would render any other result a grave injustice.”

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

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.” [1] When a plaintiff contends that he or she was fraudulently induced to take some action, such as enter

By Jeffrey M. Haber On June 22, 2016, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority in U.S. ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, et al., No. 04-0280 (D.D.C.), a case brought under the False Claims Act (“FCA”) against contractors who manufactured and sold bullet proof vests. The purpose of the filing was to notify the court of the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States ex rel. Escobar,