Search Results

Haber To state a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a material misrepresentation of plaintiff must provide sufficient facts to support a “reasonable inference” that the allegations of fraud .” 6 Thus, where the facts “are peculiarly within the knowledge of the party charged with the fraud, , “intent to commit fraud is to be divined from surrounding circumstances.” 9 In today’s Fraud Notes will permit the trier of fact to draw the inference that a fraud was perpetrated” (id.).

Apr. 4, 2023) ( here ), a case involving the special facts doctrine in the context of a fraud claim, in particular, the justifiable reliance element of a fraud claim.  and fair dealing; (2) breach of fiduciary duty; (3) breach of General Business Law (“GBL”) § 349; (4) fraud “Mere puffery, opinions of value or future expectations” do not support a fraud claim, defendants argued On April 26, 2022, the motion court dismissed plaintiffs’ claims for breach of GBL § 349 and fraud in

Recently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) issued an Investor Alert about AI and the risk of fraud Industry Regulatory Authority, issued the Alert to “make investors aware of the increase of investment frauds In the Alert, the SEC identified “a few things to look out for to help keep money safe from frauds Some of the AI and AI-related fraud includes: Unregistered/Unlicensed Investment Platforms Claiming to Investor Alert: Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Investment Fraud: Investor Alert, SEC.gov (Jan. 25,

York law. 5 While champerty is not a frequent topic for examination by this Blog, claims involving fraud To state a claim for fraud, plaintiff must allege “misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact The complaint alleged causes of action for fraud, fraudulent concealment, aiding and abetting fraud, We examine the court’s decision with respect to the champerty and fraud causes of action. actual and justifiable reliance for their fraud cause of action.

Department addressed legal principles and causes of action that are familiar to readers of this Blog: fraud , the particularity requirement of CPLR 3016(b), the statute of limitations applicable to fraud claims plus interest and other related expenses as a result of defendant’s alleged breach of contract and fraud Regarding the fraud claim, defendant argued that plaintiff failed to plead fraud with particularity as Defendant maintained that plaintiff provided no details about the nature of the alleged fraud, or how

motion court did not have personal jurisdiction over defendant and that plaintiff could not assert his fraud Rules Governing the Statute of Limitations for Fraud and Fraud-Based Claims A party seeking dismissal So too is the determination of when the plaintiff discovered or could have discovered the fraud. ” “ ere suspicion will not constitute a sufficient substitute” for knowledge of the fraud. Accordingly, the motion court held that plaintiff was inquiry notice of the alleged fraud .

Haber As we have often explained in the articles in which we have examined the duplication doctrine, fraud claims that are nothing more than contract claims dressed up in fraud clothing, are subject to dismissal Thus, courts will apply the doctrine when a plaintiff alleges a breach of contract claim and a fraud When that happens, the fraud claim will be deemed duplicative of the contract claim not only because the fraud claim arises from the same facts as the contract claim, but also because the fraud claim seeks

Haber In today’s Fraud Notes, we examine two cases involving different issues impacting a fraud claim It is well settled that appraisals are generally not actionable under a theory of fraud or fraudulent Olshan  also reaffirms three principles involving fraud claims: fraud claims based on promises without To find such articles, please see the  Blog  tile on our  website  and search for any fraud, fraudulent As relates to today’s article, type “fraud”, “justifiable reliance”, “fraudulent inducement”, “matters

Haber “The elements of a cause of action for fraud require a material misrepresentation of a fact, knowledge A claim rooted in fraud must be pleaded with the requisite particularity under CPLR 3016(b).” As this Blog has noted in several articles, many cases involving an alleged fraud often rise and fall Feb. 13, 2025) ( here ), a case involving, among other claims, the scienter element of a fraud claim. “Rather,” said the Court, “the complaint allege , in conclusory terms, that engaged in fraud and fraud

Haber As readers of this Blog know, to recover damages for fraud, a plaintiff must allege “a misrepresentation In prior articles, we have discussed the impact a disclaimer clause can have on a fraud claim. Namely, a disclaimer clause can preclude a fraud claim when (1) the disclaimer is specific to the fact We examine the motion court’s decision concerning the Fraud-Based Claims . For numerous reasons, the motion court dismissed the Fraud-Based Claims.

had already considered and rejected, arguing that further disclosure was needed to support a claim of fraud Absent clear and convincing evidence demonstrating fraud that could not have been uncovered during an Shell moved to vacate the Award on the grounds that VGCP procured it through fraud or misconduct. first, that fraud occurred in the arbitration, which must be proven by clear and convincing evidence Second, Shell  underscores the difficulties vacating an award for fraud under CPLR 7511.

Oct. 11, 2023) (here), the Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a fraud claim Plaintiff commenced the action to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation and fraud against ACAP inter alia , granted the motion, finding that plaintiff failed to plead negligent misrepresentation and fraud insofar as asserted against them.” 7 The Court found that the fraud allegations “were merely a recitation conclusory” way “that the defendants’ representations ‘were so reckless and wanton as to constitute fraud