You are here: / / Alleged Misrepresentations Were Not Collateral or Extraneous to the Contract—Fraud...
,

Alleged Misrepresentations Were Not Collateral or Extraneous to the Contract—Fraud Cause of Action Will Not Lie

Re: an elevator-maintenance contract, the Second Department explained when a fraud cause of action must be dismissed in the context of a breach of contract action:

We find unpersuasive the plaintiff’s contention that the Supreme Court erroneously granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the fifth cause of action, which alleged fraud. “Where a claim to recover damages for fraud is premised upon an alleged breach of contractual duties, and the allegations with respect to the purported fraud do not concern representations which are collateral or extraneous to the terms of the parties’ agreement, a cause of action sounding in fraud does not lie” … . Here, the complaint and the accompanying affidavits alleged that the individual defendants made knowingly false statements that the subject elevators would be promptly repaired and properly maintained, and that any governmental violations that were issued with regard to them would be resolved and closed. However, the parties’ agreement, as referenced by the defendants in support of their motion, “conclusively established that the alleged fraudulent misrepresentations at issue were not collateral or extraneous to the contract. Rather, the alleged misrepresentations amounted only to a misrepresentation of the intent or ability to perform under the contract” … . Renaissance Equity Holdings LLC v Al-An El Maintenance Corp, 2014 NY Slip Op 06570, 2nd Dept 10-1-14

 

You might also like
NO LIABILITY WHERE DRIVER SUFFERED AN UNFORESEEABLE MEDICAL EMERGENCY.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A SAFETY DEVICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 240 (1) IN THIS FALLING OBJECT CASE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A HARD HAT THAT COULD BE WORN WITH A WELDING SHIELD WAS REQUIRED UNDER LABOR LAW 241 (6) (SECOND DEPT).
CONTRACTUAL PROVISION LIMITING DAMAGES IS ENFORCEABLE, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
NO DUTY OF CARE OWED PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANTS DID NOT OWN, OCCUPY OR CONTROL THE STAIRCASE WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL (SECOND DEPT).
Scientific Expert Opinion Need Not Be Based Upon Textual Authority
IT WAS AN ABUSE OF DISCRETION TO DENY FATHER’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS DEFAULT IN THIS CUSTODY CASE; THE USUAL RULES FOR VACATION OF A DEFAULT ARE RELAXED IN CHILD CUSTODY MATTERS (SECOND DEPT).
SECOND MOTION TO VACATE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED ON GROUNDS THAT COULD HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THE FIRST MOTION, SECOND MOTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TREATED AS A MOTION TO RENEW (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Did Not Waive the Statute of Limitations Defense, Pled In Its Answer, by Failing to Assert It in a Pre-Answer Motion to Dismiss—Although Defendant’s Post-Answer Motion Was Ostensibly Brought Pursuant to CPLR 3211 Instead of 3212, the Procedural Irregularity Should Have Been Excused under CPLR 2001

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Derivative-Shareholder-Claim Versus Direct-Individual-Claim Explained/Out-of-Pocket... Warrantless Cell Phone Search Required Suppression and a New Trial