You are here: / / PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR...
,

PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Gische, determined plaintiff, a sophisticated investor, did not state a cause of action for fraud on the part of the company (DuCool) in which plaintiff invested:

Where a cause of action is based in fraud, “the complaint must allege misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact, falsity, scienter on the part of the wrongdoer, justifiable reliance and resulting injury” … . Furthermore, where the plaintiff is a sophisticated party, “if the facts represented are not matters peculiarly within the [defendant's] knowledge, and the [plaintiff] has the means available to [it] of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, [the plaintiff] must make use of those means, or [it] will not be heard to complain that [it] was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations” … . Circumstances constituting fraud must be set forth in a complaint in detail (CPLR 3016[b]). * * *

Plaintiff is an experienced and sophisticated investor. It did not plead facts to support the justifiable reliance element of fraud … . Plaintiff had total, unfettered access to every aspect of DuCool's company information both before and after its initial investment, even before it held a controlling interest in DuCool. Although learning through the due diligence conducted by its own technology and business consultants that there were frequent technological problems with DuCool products, some of them “severe,” plaintiff proceeded to invest in the company. Thereafter, as the 49% shareholder, plaintiff had the largest percentage ownership of any individual shareholder and it had access to information concerning the operations of the business. There is no factual basis on which to conclude that the alleged fraud involved matters peculiarly within defendants' knowledge, because plaintiff had the means to discover the truth behind any false claims about the condition of the company and whether this was a feasible investment… . MP Cool Invs. Ltd. v Forkosh, 2016 NY Slip Op 04159, 1st Dept 5-31-16

FRAUD (PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS)/CORPORATION LAW (PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS)/CORPORATION LAW (PLAINTIFF, A SOPHISTICATED INVESTOR, DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUD ON THE PART OF THE COMPANY IN WHICH PLAINTIFF INVESTED AND PURCHASED A CONTROLLING INTEREST, PLAINTIFF HAD THE MEANS TO DISCOVER THE TRUTH BEHIND ANY ALLEGED FALSE CLAIMS)

You might also like
FALL FROM LADDER WHILE SETTING UP AUDIOVISUAL EQUIPMENT NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1).
SILENCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE WAIVER; HERE THE NONPARTY DID NOT EXPRESSLY WAIVE THE COMMON INTEREST, WORK PRODUCT OR TRIAL PREPARATION PRIVILEGES WITH RESPECT TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS (FIRST DEPT).
THE JURY VERDICT FINDING THAT PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE WAS NOT THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURIES WAS NOT INCONSISTENT AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE (SECOND DEPT).
PHYSICAL INCAPACITY CAN BE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, BUT THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY DOES NOT TOLL THE ONE YEAR AND 90 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
REMOVING RENTED AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT FROM A HOSPITAL CONSTITUTED A COVERED “ALTERATION” WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) (FIRST DEPT).
THE CITY AND DEFENDANT CORRECTION OFFICER ARE NOT UNITED IN INTEREST BECAUSE THE CITY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR ITS EMPLOYEES’ VIOLATION OF 42 USC 1983, THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON TO SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECTION OFFICER FOR “JANE DOE” AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAS RUN (FIRST DEPT).
A CONDITIONAL JUDICIAL SURRENDER OF A CHILD FOR ADOPTION MUST BE REVOKED WHERE THE DESIGNATED ADOPTIVE PARENT DECLINES TO ADOPT AND THE BIRTH PARENT PROMPTLY APPLIES FOR REVOCATION OF THE JUDICIAL SURRENDER (FIRST DEPT).
IN A REAR-END COLLISION CASE, DEFENDANT’S ALLEGATION PLAINTIFF STOPPED SUDDENLY DOES NOT RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT (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

PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION UNDER LABOR LAW 741. ONCE INJURED FIREFIGHTER BEGAN RECEIVING GENERAL MUNICIPLA LAW 207-a BENEFITS,...