You are here: / / Documentary Evidence Can Be Considered In CPLR 3211(a)(7) Motion to Dismiss/Disclaimer...
, , ,

Documentary Evidence Can Be Considered In CPLR 3211(a)(7) Motion to Dismiss/Disclaimer Not Specific Enough to Preclude Fraud Cause of Action

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, with a concurring opinion by Justice DeGrasse, the First Department determined that arbitration could not be compelled in the absence of a specific, written agreement and a fraud cause of action against Goldman Sachs based upon the sale of mortgage-backed securities to the plaintiff hedge fund could go forward. The court concluded that documentary evidence submitted by the defendant in support of a motion to dismiss pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) was properly considered by Supreme Court, and the disclaimer relied upon by the defendant was not specific enough to warrant dismissal of the fraud cause of action:

A CPLR 3211(a)(7) motion may be used by a defendant to test the facial sufficiency of a pleading in two different ways. On the one hand, the motion may be used to dispose of an action in which the plaintiff has not stated a claim cognizable at law. On the other hand, the motion may be used to dispose of an action in which the plaintiff identified a cognizable cause of action but failed to assert a material allegation necessary to support the cause of action. As to the latter, the Court of Appeals has made clear that a defendant can submit evidence in support of the motion attacking a well-pleaded cognizable claim … When documentary evidence is submitted by a defendant “the standard morphs from whether the plaintiff has stated a cause of action to whether it has one”… . * * *

The law is abundantly clear in this state that a buyer’s disclaimer of reliance cannot preclude a claim of justifiable reliance on the seller’s misrepresentations or omissions unless (1) the disclaimer is made sufficiently specific to the particular type of fact misrepresented or undisclosed; and (2) the alleged misrepresentations or omissions did not concern facts peculiarly within the seller’s knowledge … . Accordingly, only where a written contract contains a specific disclaimer of responsibility for extraneous representations, that is, a provision that the parties are not bound by or relying upon representations or omissions as to the specific matter, is a plaintiff precluded from later claiming fraud on the ground of a prior misrepresentation as to the specific matter… . Basis Yield Alpha Fund (Master) v Goldman Sachs Group, Inc, 2014 NY Sliip Op 00587, 1st Dept 1-30-14

 

You might also like
MOTHER’S MARIJUANA USE DURING PREGNANCY AND THE FACT THAT MOTHER AND CHILD TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJUANA AT THE TIME OF THE CHILD’S BIRTH WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE NEGLECT; NEW YORK HAS LEGALIZED MARIJUANA USE (FIRST DEPT).
THE CONTINUING WRONG DOCTRINE APPLIES TO THIS COMPLEX BREACH OF CONTRACT ACTION SUCH THAT EACH BREACH WAS AN ACTIONABLE EVENT; THEREFORE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DID NOT START RUNNING FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT BREACHES WHEN THE FIRST BREACH OCCURRED (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS-PARENTS’ CAUSE OF ACTION FOR LOSS OF THEIR INJURED DAUGHTER’S SERVICES SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THE PARENTS DEMONSTRATED ONLY THAT THEIR DAUGHTER PERFORMED SERVICES IN HER EMPLOYMENT AT THE COMPANIES OWNED BY THE PARENTS (FIRST DEPT).
New York City Was Unable to Demonstrate Amendments to the Adult Use Zoning Regulations Were Necessary to Reduce the Negative Effects of Such Businesses on the Surrounding Areas–Therefore the Amendments Constituted an Unjustified Restriction on Speech
A Counteroffer Extinguishes the Initial Offer Which Cannot Be Unilaterally Revived by Subsequent Acceptance
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE RAISED SIDEWALK FLAG AND WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
One Year Statute of Limitations in Labor Law 740 Trumps the One-Year-Ninety-Days Statute of Limitations in General Municipal Law 50-e(5) (Incorporated Into the Health & Hospitals Corporation Act)
ARBITRATOR’S AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES TO PLAINTIFF IN THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT DISPUTE REINSTATED; MONEY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO A PARTY WHICH HAD CONTRACTED WITH PLAINTIFF, BUT WITH WHICH DEFENDANT DID NOT HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO ARBITRATE; COURT-REVIEW OF ARBITRATION AWARDS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL (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

“Undue Influence” and “Fraud” Criteria Explained Re: Objections to Probate... No Reference to When Child-Pornography Images Downloaded/Therefore Consecutive...