Search Results

Sept. 23, 2025 (here), plaintiff sued RS Custom Woodworking and its representatives for fraud after winning the motion court and the Appellate Division, First Department, found that plaintiff failed to plead fraud As a result, the fraud claims were dismissed. Defendants argued that the fraud-based claims should be dismissed because there were no facts supporting with particularity”, “fraud”, “elements of fraud”, or any other commercial litigation issue that may

The alleged fraud, as described by plaintiffs, was based on, inter alia , a representation made during demonstrate or raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the arbitration provision was procured by fraud “plaintiffs fail to raise an issue of fact as to whether the arbitration provision was procured by fraud or to make any showing that discovery may lead to relevant evidence on this issue or on any of their fraud The acts alleged by plaintiffs in support of their fraud claims are patently insufficient to support

parties’ contract barred the majority of plaintiff’s claims against defendants, and that plaintiff’s fraud its amended complaint, plaintiff asserted causes of action for tortious interference with contract, fraud Plaintiff noted that, by virtue of public policy, its fraud claim was not subject to the non-recourse Regarding the fraud claim, which defendants recognized was not barred by the non-recourse provision, With respect to its fraud claim, plaintiff asserted that it adequately pleaded justifiable reliance

Partners LLC (collectively, the “Entity Defendants”) – with perpetrating a real estate-related offering fraud Takeaway Nantomah reflects an ongoing effort by the SEC to target affinity fraud. The promoter of the fraud either belongs to the group or uses a trusted insider to promote the scam, Victims of affinity fraud are often persuaded to invest in fraudulent ventures with promises of high Real estate is an attractive vehicle for fraud because it typically involves large sums of money and

As we have discussed in numerous posts, plaintiffs alleging breach of contract and fraud risk having PPP filed the action, alleging breach of contract (Counts I and II), fraud and fraudulent inducement (Count III), unjust enrichment (Count IV), and aiding and abetting fraud (Count V). The motion court dismissed the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud causes of action ( here ). With regard to the fraud causes of action, the motion court granted the motion.

all of the key misrepresentations and transactional details and logistics perpetuating defendants’ fraud According to plaintiff, the Project was an extension of AIPL’s alleged fraud because it was able to use commenced the action on June 21, 2024, asserting claims under New York law for conspiracy to commit fraud New York lacked an interest in the action given that Singapore was the epicenter of AIPL’s alleged fraud Plaintiff concluded by arguing that, because the alleged fraud involved New York companies, New York

boiler room-style high-pressure sales tactics, false and misleading statements, and other means of fraud The SEC alleged that the Max Principals operated their fraudulent scheme through a variety of entities

With regard to the fraud claim, the Court held that defendants “raised issues of fact as to whether they claim, since there was no underlying fraud cause of action. Note: Under New York law, courts will not permit a fraud-based claim ( i.e. , fraudulent inducement) Indeed, courts routinely dismiss a fraud claim where “ he existence of a valid and enforceable written “As a result,” said the Court, “plaintiff’s fraud claim was properly dismissed.” Bielsa v.

Nov. 16, 2023) ( here ), the Appellate Division, First Department affirmed the dismissal of a fraud claim because the plaintiffs failed to plead fraud with particularity, as required under CPLR § 3016(b), and Following multiple amendments, plaintiffs added parties and causes of action, including, inter alia , fraud More specifically, the fraud claim was based on alleged misrepresentations about Skytop’s revenue, funding Under CPLR § 3016(b), the circumstances constituting fraud must be stated with sufficient detail “to

something in common, such as a religious group, an ethnic group, or a community – also known as affinity fraud In the prior action, the SEC obtained a temporary restraining order halting the alleged fraud , as well Grewal also commented on the SEC’s commitment to protect investors from fraud: “A scheme of that size against not just the principal architects of these massive schemes, but all those who further their fraud Footnotes In 2014, the SEC issued an investor alert about affinity fraud.

Fraud in the sale of securities. Plaintiff’s operative complaint contained five causes of action: fraud in the inducement, fraud, constructive fraud, unjust enrichment and recission. The motion court denied the motion as to the fraud claims ( here ). to recover for actual fraud, except that a cause of action for constructive fraud does not require proof

Haber To establish a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must plead a material misrepresentation of In particular, plaintiffs alleged that defendants fraudulently induced them to invest their money by In connection with the fraud claim, plaintiff alleged that Giordano falsely told plaintiff’s representatives Giordano moved to dismiss and for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s fraud claim against him. In prior articles, we have discussed the impact that a disclaimer clause in a contract can have on a fraud