You are here: / / FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE (1) IT WAS DUPLICATIVE...
, ,

FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE (1) IT WAS DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND (2) PLAINTIFF, AS A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY, COULD NOT ARGUE IT RELIED ON ORAL REPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT; STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT NOT MET.

The Third Department, affirming Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was properly dismissed because (1) it was duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, and (2), plaintiff, a sophisticated business entity,  could not be heard to rely upon alleged oral representations which contradicted the written contract.  In addition, the Third Department determined the requirements for attachment pursuant to CPLR 6201 (3) were not met by plaintiff. There was insufficient proof defendant was secreting assets of frustrate a potential judgment:

A cause of action for fraud does not exist where the alleged fraudulent act is premised upon a breach of a contractual obligation … . * * * … [A] sophisticated business entity cannot justifiably rely on oral representations when it thereafter enters into a contract containing terms that directly contradict those oral representations … . Accordingly, plaintiff’s fraud cause of action is subject to dismissal, either as duplicative of the contract cause of action or, in the alternative, based on plaintiff’s own allegations that it relied on oral representations that were contradicted by the terms of the contract that it thereafter entered into. Northeast United Corp. v Lewis, 2016 NY Slip Op 01713, 3rd Dept 3-10-16

CONTRACT LAW (SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY CAN NOT ARGUE IT RELIED ON ORAL MISREPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT)/FRAUD (FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED AS DUPLICATIVE OF BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION AND BECAUSE PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED BUSINESS ENTITY, COULD NOT BE HEARID TO HAVE RELIED UPON ORAL MISREPRESENTATIONS WHICH CONTRADICTED THE WRITTEN CONTRACT)/ATTACHMENT (STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 6201 (3) NOT MET)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STRICT REQUIREMENTS FOR ATTACHMENT PURSUANT TO CPLR 6201 (3) NOT MET)

You might also like
Breach of Fiduciary Duty Cause of Action Stated Against Actuary
CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING FIRST SEVEN WEEKS OF A STRIKE, ALTERNATIVE WORK SITE AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).
WHERE THE ORDER DISMISSING A COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CPLR 3215 AFTER A SEVEN-YEAR DELAY IN SEEKING A DEFAULT JUDGMENT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY SET FORTH CONDUCT DEMONSTRATING A GENERAL PATTERN OF DELAY THE SAVINGS CLAUSE OF CPLR 205 APPLIES AND THE ACTION MAY BE RE-COMMENCED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DISMISSAL (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT WAS NOT ‘DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF CPLR 3211, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED BASED UPON ALLEGATIONS IN PLAINTIFF’S VERIFIED COMPLAINT (THIRD DEPT).
RESPONDENT NOT INFORMED OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT IN THIS PINS PROCEEDING, ORDER OF DISPOSITION VACATED.
DAUGHTER’S PETITION TO BE APPOINTED GUARDIAN FOR HER MOTHER, WHO HAS DEMENTIA AND ALZHEIMER’S, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL SUBMITTED EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF A DOWNWARD DEPARTURE FROM THE PRESUMPTIVE RISK LEVEL BUT COUNTY COURT DID NOT RULE ON IT; MATTER REMITTED FOR FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS (THIRD DEPT).
HERE PLAINTIFF’S PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF APARTMENTS WAS PROHIBITED BY A LOCAL LAW; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED THE BIAS OF THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD INFECTED THE PLANNING BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD (WHICH ENACTED THE LAW); THOSE ALLEGATIONS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THE LOCAL LAW VALID (THIRD 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

USE OF PLAINTIFF’S LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE; EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION... PLAINTIFF MINORITY SHAREHOLDER ALLOWED TO REPLEAD DIRECT CLAIMS UNDER CAYMAN...