You are here: / / Specific Disclaimers Indicating No Information Extrinsic to the Written...
, ,

Specific Disclaimers Indicating No Information Extrinsic to the Written Contract Was Relied Upon Precluded Fraud in the Inducement Cause of Action/Summary Judgment on Promissory Note Precluded—Breach of Contract Cause of Action Was Intertwined with Promissory Note

In a decision addressing many other issues, the Second Department determined specific disclaimers in the contract indicating nothing extrinsic to the contract was relied upon by the parties precluded any claim alleging fraudulent inducement.  The court also noted that plaintiff was not entitled to summary judgment on a promissory note because the note was intertwined with the breach of contract cause of action:

“While a general merger clause is ineffective to exclude parol evidence of fraud in the inducement, a specific disclaimer destroys the allegations in [a] plaintiff’s complaint that the agreement was executed in reliance upon . . . contrary oral [mis]representations'” … . In support of this branch of their motion, [defendant] relied upon the contract, which provides that [defendant] made no representation or warranty, either express or implied, as to the assets sold, [defendant’s] business, or “any matter or thing affecting or relating to this agreement, except as specifically set forth in this agreement.” The contract also indicates that it contains all of the terms agreed upon between the parties and that it was entered into after full investigation. Such clauses are sufficiently specific to bar the [plaintiffs] from claiming that they were fraudulently induced into entering the contract because of certain oral misrepresentations … . * * *

Although the breach of a related contract generally cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment on an instrument for money only, that rule does not apply where the contract and instrument are intertwined … . Here, the action to recover damages for breach of contract is sufficiently intertwined with the action to recover on the promissory note, such that denial of summary judgment to enforce the promissory note and personal guaranty was proper … . Oseff v Scotti, 2015 NY Slip Op 06123, 2nd Dept 7-15-15

You might also like
THE FRANCHISOR, TOYOTA, DID NOT EXERCISE CONTROL OVER THE FRANCHISEE’S, PLAZA TOYOTA’S, DAILY OPERATIONS; THEREFORE TOYOTA COULD NOT BE HELD VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR PLAZA TOYOTA’S NEGLIGENCE; HERE A WHEEL FELL OFF PLAINTIFF’S CAR AFTER IT WAS SERVICED AT PLAZA TOYOTA (SECOND DEPT).
WHERE ALLEGATIONS IN A PETITION TO MODIFY CUSTODY ARE CONTROVERTED, THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE RULED UPON WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF, WHO HAD PURCHASED 75% OF REAL PROPERTY FROM THE HEIRS OF THE ORIGINAL OWNER, SOUGHT PARTITION AND SALE; DEFENDANT, WHOSE MOTHER HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, OWNED THE REMAINING 25%; UNDER THE UNIFORM PARTITION OF HEIRS PROPERTY ACT (UPHPA), PLAINTIFF WAS REQUIRED TO NEGOTIATE A SETTLEMENT IN GOOD FAITH, BUT DID NOT (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE DEFENSE VERDICT IN THIS REAR-END COLLISION CASE PROPERLY DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
UNEXPECTED ABSENCE OF A PROSECUTION WITNESS AFTER ARRESTING OFFICERS TESTIFIED ABOUT THE WITNESS’S INVOLVEMENT IN DEFENDANT’S ARREST DEPRIVED DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST HIM, CONVICTION REVERSED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF IN THIS TAX LIEN FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY SERVED WITH THE NOTICE TO REDEEM; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES FROM THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
THE FACT THAT THE DOG WAS A GUARD DOG AND THE NATURE OF THE ATTACK AND INJURIES RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT DEFENDANTS’ KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR DOG’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES IN THIS DOG BITE CASE (SECOND DEPT)
THE CITY ISSUED TREE PIT PERMITS FOR THE SIDEWALK ABOVE A SUBWAY STATION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE SUBWAY STATION BELOW THE SIDEWALK WHEN A PIECE OF CONCRETE FELL; THE CITY DID NOT CLAIM IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (TREE PIT PERMITS) (SECOND 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

Cooperative Board’s Denial of Plaintiff’s Application to Sell His... Failure to Instruct the Jury on the Justification Defense Required Reversal...