You are here: / / Action for Fraud Cannot Be Based on Same Facts as Breach of Contract; Fraud...
,

Action for Fraud Cannot Be Based on Same Facts as Breach of Contract; Fraud Must Be Pled in Detail

After noting that a cause of action for fraud does not lie when it is based on the same allegations stated in a breach of contract cause of action, the Second Department explained the pleading requirements in a fraud action, including the need for “detail,” as follows:

A cause of action to recover damages for fraud requires allegations of (1) a false representation of fact, (2) knowledge of the falsity, (3) intent to induce reliance, (4) justifiable reliance, and (5) damages…. Moreover, CPLR 3016(b) requires that the circumstances underlying a cause of action based on fraud be stated “in detail” (CPLR 3016[b];…). Here, the allegations of fraud against the remaining defendants either were bare and conclusory or do not rise to the level of fraud. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the separate motions of the remaining defendants which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the third cause of action insofar as asserted against each of them. Genovese v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 2013 NY Slip Op 03453, 2nd Dept, 5-15-13

 

 

You might also like
City Estopped from Denying Property Owner the Opportunity to Seek Discretionary Relief Re: the Payment and Acceptance of Tax Arrears—City’s Actions Misled Property Owner
EVIDENCE THE CHILD WITNESSED A PHYSICAL ALTERCATION BETWEEN MOTHER AND FATHER WAS SUFFICIENT FOR A FINDING FATHER NEGLECTED THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Was Subjected to Custodial Interrogation Before Waiving His Right to Remain Silent—Oral Pre-Miranda and Written Post-Miranda Statements Should Have Been Suppressed—Error Deemed Harmless
Zoning Board Should Have Made Every Effort to Accommodate Religious Use/Zoning Board’s Denial of Variances Annulled and Variances Granted
“Wheel Stop” in Parking Lot Does Not Present an Unreasonable Risk of Harm
DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST UNINCORPORATED ASSOCIATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED UNDER THE MARTIN RULE, DEFAMATION ACTION AGAINST INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION AGAINST THE ASSOCIATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
Padilla v Kentucky, Which Held Attorney’s Failure to Inform Client of Immigration Consequences of Plea Was Ineffective Assistance, Not Applied Retroactively Under New York Constitution
DISCLOSURE OF WITNESS CONTACT INFORMATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DELAYED UNTIL 15 DAYS BEFORE TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Bank Account in Name “Ann … or Thomas…” Could Be Turned Over to Pay... Contribution and Indemnification Unavailable in Breach of Contract Action; Notice...