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
THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT THE TYPE OF GRAVITY-RELATED INCIDENT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1); BUT THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WAS LIABLE PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 200 (FIRST DEPT).
LAW OFFICE FAILURE INSUFFICIENT, MOTION TO VACATE DEFAULT PROPERLY DENIED (FIRST DEPT).
Judges Not Entitled to Retroactive Monetary Damages Re: Legislature’s Failure to Enact Cost of Living Increases Since 2000
DEFENDANTS DEMONSTRATED THEY HAD NO NOTICE OF A JAGGED EDGE ON A DOOR WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE INJURED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
TRIAL COURT’S DECLARING A MISTRIAL VIOLATED THE PARTIES’ STIPULATION PURSUANT TO THE SUMMARY JURY TRIAL RULES (FIRST DEPT).
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY (PANYNJ) WAS THE LESSOR OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THIS LABOR LAW 241(6) ACTION, IT WAS AN “OWNER” WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE LABOR LAW AND, THEREFORE, WAS A PROPER DEFENDANT; ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, SHE WAS IN AN AREA USED TO CREATE MATERIALS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, WHICH IS COVERED BY THE LABOR LAW (FIRST DEPT). ​
Lineup Was Unduly Suggestive, Court Suggested Everyone In the Lineup Should Have Been Given an Eye Patch Because the Complainant Described the Perpetrator as Having a “Deformed Eye”
HEARSAY STATEMENTS IN AN UNCERTIFIED, UNAUTHENTICATED REPORT FOR WHICH NO FOUNDATION WAS PROVIDED DID NOT CREATE AN ISSUE 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,...