You are here: / / FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION DID NOT MEET PLEADING REQUIREMENTS.
,

FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION DID NOT MEET PLEADING REQUIREMENTS.

The Second Department determined a fraud cause of action against defendant Ballard was duplicative of contract causes of action, and another fraud cause of action against other defendants did not meet pleading requirements. The court explained the applicable law:

 

… [T]he alleged misrepresentations set forth in the causes of action alleging fraud against Ballard … are not sufficiently distinct from the claims that Ballard breached that contract so as to constitute separate causes of action … . Not only did the fraud causes of action asserted against Ballard arise out of identical circumstances as the causes of action alleging breach of contract, but they were based upon identical allegations, and did not allege that a misrepresentation resulted in any loss independent of the damages allegedly incurred for breach of contract; indeed, the damages sought were identical … . …

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, pursuant to CPLR 3016(b), where a cause of action is based upon fraud or aiding and abetting fraud, the “circumstances constituting the wrong” must be “stated in detail.” Here, inasmuch as the causes of action alleging fraud against [three of the defendants] contained only bare and conclusory allegations, without any supporting detail, they failed to satisfy the requirements of CPLR 3016(b). Doukas v Ballard, 2016 NY Slip Op 00474, 2nd Dept 1-27-16

 

FRAUD (FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DUPLICATIVE OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION)/FRAUD (ALLEGATIONS DID NOT MEET PLEADING REQUIREMENTS)/CONTRACT LAW (FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUD ALLEGATIONS DID NOT MEET PLEADING REQUIREMENTS)

/by
You might also like
PLAINTIFFS (CUPID AND ROBINSON) DEMONSTRATED DEFENDANT DRIVER WAS NEGLIGENT AND HIS NEGLIGENCE CAUSED THE TRAFFIC ACCIDENT; DEFENDANTS’ ALLEGATION THAT PLAINTIFF CUPID, NOT PLAINTIFF ROBINSON, WAS DRIVING THE CAR DID NOT CREATE A RELEVANT QUESTION OF FACT (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Shareholder’s Derivative Action and Shareholder’s Action to Inspect Corporate Books Explained
Abutting Property Owners Not Liable for Falls in Sidewalk Tree Wells (NYC)
Father Estopped from Denying Paternity—Best Interests of Child Prevail
19 YEAR OLD NOTICE OF CLAIM WAS NOT SUFFICIENT WRITTEN NOTICE OF SIDEWALK DEFECT.
Defendant’s Counsel Took a Position Adverse to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate His Guilty Plea—Court Should Have Appointed New Counsel Before Hearing the Motion
THE PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE DESTROYED THE UNDERGROUND OIL TANKS WHICH WERE ALLEGED TO HAVE LEAKED, CONTAMINATING PLAINTIFF’S PROPERTY; HOWEVER THE DEFENDANT OIL COMPANIES DID NOT DEMONSRTATE THE DESTRUCTION OF THE TANKS MADE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE A DEFENSE; THEREFORE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION, NOT THE STRIKING OF THE COMPLAINT, WAS THE APPROPRIATE SANCTION (SECOND DEPT).
Testimony of Defense Expert About Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications Properly Precluded/Criteria for Such Testimony Explained

Categories

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

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

YOUTHFUL OFFENDER ADJUDICATION PROPERLY USED TO DETERMINE SEX OFFENDER REGISTRATION... PLAINTIFF’S LEANING TO THE SIDE OF A NON-DEFECTIVE LADDER WAS THE SOLE...