You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED...
, ,

ALTHOUGH THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE THE CONTRACT WAS NOT AMBIGUOUS AND PAROL EVIDENCE THEREFORE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE; THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION, FOR WHICH PAROL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent inducement cause of action should not have been dismissed as duplicative of the breach of contract causes of action, which were properly dismissed because the contract was not ambiguous and parol evidence was therefore not admissible:

Supreme Court erred in granting that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement. The fraudulent inducement cause of action is not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action, as the fraudulent inducement cause of action is not based upon promised performance of an obligation of the defendants under the pledge agreement, and the plaintiffs sought separate and distinct damages for each cause of action … . Furthermore, the use of parol evidence is not precluded to establish the fraudulent inducement cause of action … . Goodale v Central Suffolk Hosp., 2022 NY Slip Op 06691, Second Dept 11-23-22

Practice Point: Here the fraudulent inducement cause of action was not duplicative of the dismissed breach of contract causes of action. Because the contract was not ambiguous, parol evidence was not admissible for the breach of contract causes of action. But parol evidence may be admitted in the fraudulent inducement action. The fraudulent inducement cause of action was not based on the performance of the contract and alleged separate and distinct damages.

 

You might also like
Licensing Officer Has Broad Discretion Re: Denial of Application for a Pistol Permit
PHOTOGRAPHER WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR NOT AN EMPLOYEE, NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR INJURY CAUSED BY PHOTOGRAPHER.
DEFENDANT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT ASSERT THE BANK LACKED STANDING IN HIS ANSWER AND DID NOT OPPOSE THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE, SUA SPONTE, RAISED THE STANDING ISSUE AND DENIED PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND (SECOND DEPT).
BECAUSE PETITIONER-WIFE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE EPTL, SHE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO HER ELECTIVE SHARE OF HER DECEASED HUSBAND’S DEATH BENEFIT (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT PARKING LOT WHERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGEDLY TRIPPED AND FELL WAS DEEMED TO BE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SIDEWALK; THEREFORE THE STATUTE REQUIRING WRITTEN NOTICE OF A DANGEROUS SIDEWALK CONDITION AS A PREREQUISITE FOR COUNTY LIABILITY APPLIED; THE COUNTY’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK’S FAILURE TO REJECT THE LATE ANSWER WITHIN 15 DAYS WAIVED THE LATE SERVICE AND DEFAULT (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE “ONE ENVELOPE” RULE FOR THE MAILING OF THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE OF DEFAULT IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Complaint Sufficiently Alleged a Cause of Action for Unjust Enrichment—an Action Which Only Applies in the Absence of an Express Agreement

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

DEFENDANTS’ CAR WAS STOPPED IN THE SHOULDER LANE FOR A NON-EMERGENCY REASON... THE CONTINUOUS TREATMENT DOCTRINE TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN THIS...