You are here: / / Criteria for Fraudulent Inducement and Attachment
,

Criteria for Fraudulent Inducement and Attachment

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Feinman, the First Department outlined the criteria for fraudulent inducement where the parties are “sophisticated entities,” as well as the strict criteria for attachment:

The elements of fraud are a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was known to be false by the defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or omission, and injury …. In this case, the buyers have not sufficiently alleged justifiable reliance. “[R]eliance must be found to be justifiable under all the circumstances before a complaint can be found to state a cause of action in fraud”…. What constitutes reasonable reliance is “always nettlesome” because it is so fact-intensive…. Sophisticated investors must show they used due diligence and took affirmative steps to protect themselves from misrepresentations by employing what means of verification were available at the time … . * * *

We conclude that, on the extant record which consists of competing affidavits, the grant of an attachment and its confirmation was an abuse of discretion. “[T]he mere fact that defendant is a non-domiciliary residing without the State of New York is not sufficient ground for granting an attachment”…. The sellers have shown no evidence that the buyers lack sufficient assets, or that they will choose to hide or otherwise dispose of their assets. We note that no hearing was held at which the credibility of the buyers’ averments regarding their financial status and resources could be evaluated. At most, the sellers’ affidavits establish that there is potentially a significant amount of bureaucracy involved in obtaining the assets as converted funds. This is not, in itself, sufficient to order an attachment. The orders of the motion court granting and confirming the orders of attachment, and granting discovery to aid in attachment, as well as the order that the buyers transfer assets into New York State, should therefore be reversed.  VisionChina Media Inc v Shareholder Representative Servs, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 04298, 1st Dept, 6-11-13

 

You might also like
Plaintiff Judgment-Creditor’s Action Under the Debtor Creditor Law to Recover Payment Made to a Limited Partner Time-Barred by Three-Year Statute of Limitations in the Revised Limited Partnership Act (RPLA)
THE TRIAL COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED EXPERT TESTIMONY ABOUT “COMMUNITY GUNS,” A CONCEPT USED BY GANGS TO MAKE GUNS AVAILABLE WHILE AVOIDING BEING CAUGHT POSSESSING THE GUNS (FIRST DEPT).
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY OF NYPD DOCUMENTS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED SOLELY BECAUSE FOIL REQUESTS FOR THE DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN DENIED.
CHIMPANZEES NOT ENTITLED TO HABEAS CORPUS RELIEF.
THE BANKRUPTCY EXCEPTION TO THE INSURED VS INSURED EXCLUSION IN THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY POLICY APPLIED TO THE CREDITOR TRUST WHICH WAS SET UP TO PURSUE THE BANKRUPTCY ESTATE’S LEGAL CLAIMS ON BEHALF OF UNSECURED CREDITORS; THE CREDIT TRUST SUED THE DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS OF THE INSURED ALLEGING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY (FIRST DEPT).
HOMEOWNER EXEMPTION APPLIED TO THE CHURCH IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL FROM A SCAFFOLD, FAILURE TO PLEAD THE EXEMPTION AS A DEFENSE DID NOT PRECLUDE RAISING IT IN A SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION, ARCHDIOCESE WAS NOT AN AGENT OF THE OWNER, NO LABOR LAW 200 LIABILITY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYER SUPERVISED AND CONTROLLED THE MEANS AND MANNER OF WORK (FIRST DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT READ THE JURY NOTE IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE PARTIES AND THE JUDGE’S PARAPHRASE OF THE CONTENTS OMITTED SIGNIFICANT ASPECTS OF IT; THE FACT THAT THE JURY ANNOUNCED IT HAD REACHED A VERDICT BEFORE THE NOTE WAS CALLED TO THE PARTIES’ ATTENTION DID NOT MATTER; THE MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR REQUIRED REVERSAL (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WAS AN OWNER OR AGENT OF THE OWNER FOR LABOR LAW PURPOSES, PROPERTY MANAGER WAS NOT LIABLE IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1), 241 (6) AND 200 ACTION STEMMING FROM PLAINTIFF’S FALL FROM A ROOF (FIRST 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

Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Revers... Evidence of Mother’s Mental Illness, Without More, Did Not Justify Neglect...