You are here: / / THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT...
,

THE COMPLAINT DID NOT STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT BECAUSE IT DID NOT ADEQUATELY ALLEGE “OUT OF POCKET” DAMAGES (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint did not state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement because it did not allege “out of pocket” damages:

… [T]he complaint fails to plead a cause of action for fraudulent inducement because it does not adequately allege that plaintiff suffered any ascertainable out-of-pocket pecuniary damages resulting from the alleged fraud … . Although plaintiff alleges unspecified reputational damages and lost revenue or profits, these allegations are not sufficient to sustain a cause of action based on fraud … . Similarly, plaintiff fails to allege that it paid any particular amount to acquire the G&P law practice or name, alleging only the value of G&P’s practice when plaintiff acquired it; this allegation is insufficient to measure plaintiff’s damages … . Furthermore, although plaintiff states that G&P “carried undisclosed liabilities,” it does not elaborate on what those might be…. . CKR Law LLP v Dipaolo, 2022 NY Slip Op 05587, First Dept 10-6-22

Practice Point: A complaint alleging fraudulent inducement does not state a cause of action unless it adequately alleges “out of pocket” damages.

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 240(6) CAUSES OF ACTION, HEAVY MOTORIZED PALLET JACK SLID ON WATER ON A DESCENDING RAMP.
Pursuant to the Public Authorities Law, Interest on a Judgment To Be Paid by the New York City Transit Authority Cannot Exceed 3%
DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO REPRESENT HIMSELF, MADE DURING JURY SELECTION, WAS TIMELY, SUMMARY REJECTION OF THE REQUEST WITHOUT ANY INQUIRY REQUIRED REVERSAL.
ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT WAS NEVER SIGNED, IT IS CLEAR THE PARTIES INTENDED TO BE BOUND BY IT (FIRST DEPT)
MEDICAL (SURGICAL) RECORDS IN A NO-FAULT FILE RELATED TO A PRIOR INJURY SUFFERED BY PLAINTIFF SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED IN THIS DAMAGES TRIAL; NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).
INSURERS’ RESPONSES TO INSUREDS’ CLAIMS UNDER THE INSURANCE CONTRACTS AMOUNTED TO A DENIAL OF LIABILITY, INSUREDS NOT OBLIGATED TO COOPERATE OR OBTAIN CONSENT TO SETTLE. ​
Defendant Was Not Plaintiff’s “Special Employer”
Questions of Fact Re: Whether School Owed Duty of Care to Student Struck by a Car While Playing Tag Five Minutes Before School Began and Whether a Breach of that Duty Proximately Caused the Injury

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

THE FRAUD CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE “OUT OF... PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL CARRYING A TANK WHILE WALKING ON THE MUDDY BOTTOM...