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.

As readers of this Blog know, a “cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent misrepresentation requires 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.”

In Skyview Capital, LLC v. Conduent Business Servs., LLC, 2025 N.Y. Slip Op. 03291 (1st Dept. June 03, 2025), 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

In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine Yudkin v. Evergreen Terrace 888 Corp., 2025 NY Slip Op 03223 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025), and Lapin v. Verner, 2025 NY Slip Op 03184 (2d Dept. May 28, 2025). 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.

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), discussed below, knowledge of falsity (i.e., scienter) and reliance were the elements at issue.

Today’s BLOG article relates to fraudulent concealment, caveat emptor and justifiable reliance when purchasing real property.

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

On January 23, 2020, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the dismissal of fraud-based claims alleged in connection with the purchase of a promissory note that memorialized a $1.5 million loan.