You are here: / / FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH...
, ,

FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION WAS NOT DUPLICATIVE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CAUSE OF ACTION; MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraud cause of action should not have been granted. Supreme Court held the fraud action was duplicative of the breach of contract action:

“The essential elements of a cause of action for fraud are representation of a material existing fact, falsity, scienter, deception and injury” … . “Mere unfulfilled promissory statements as to what will be done in the future are not actionable as fraud and the injured party’s remedy is to sue for breach of contract” … . Where, however, it is alleged that the defendant made misrepresentations of present facts that were collateral to the contract and served as an inducement to enter into the contract, a cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement is not duplicative of a breach of contract cause of action … .

… [T]he cause of action alleging fraudulent inducement was not duplicative of the breach of contract cause of action. The first cause of action alleges that the defendants knowingly made false representations in … financial statements, which were collateral to the APA [asset purchase agreement], that these false statements were made in order to induce the plaintiff to enter into the APA, that the plaintiff would not have entered into the APA but for these false statements, and that the plaintiff was injured by this fraudulent conduct …. As the first cause of action alleges misrepresentations of present fact that were collateral to the APA and further alleges that these misrepresentations induced the plaintiff to enter into the APA, the court should have denied that branch of the defendants’ motion which was to dismiss the first cause of action. Did-it.com, LLC v Halo Group, Inc., 2019 NY Slip Op 05644, Second Dept 7-17-19

 

You might also like
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NURSING HOME REFORM ACT (NHRA), THE ADMISSION AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE NURSING-HOME RESIDENT’S GRANDDAUGHTER DID NOT IMPOSE PERSONAL LIABILITY UPON THE GRANDDAUGHTER FOR PAYMENT OF THE COSTS OF THE RESIDENT’S CARE; THE GRANDDAUGHTER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED AND THE BREACH-OF-CONTRACT COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT’S LEVEL THREE SEX OFFENDER ADJUDICATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED, HIS SENTENCE ON A SEX OFFENSE WAS INTERRUPTED WHEN THE PAROLE BOARD DECLARED HIM DELINQUENT, WHEN DEFENDANT RETURNED TO STATE CUSTODY AFTER A SUBSEQUENT MURDER CONVICTION, HIS SEX OFFENSE SENTENCE RESUMED MAKING HIM SUBJECT TO SORA (SECOND DEPT).
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment on Labor Law 240 (1) Cause of Action—Plaintiff Was Standing on an A-Frame Ladder When It Swayed and Tipped Over
PLAINTIFF SERVED THE COMPLAINT ON NOVEMBER 27, 2018; DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO SERVE AN ANSWER, WHICH WAS REJECTED, ON JANUARY 9, 2019; DEFENDANT’S EXCUSE WAS “THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BY THE INSURANCE CARRIER;” THAT EXCUSE WAS INSUFFICIENT AND DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO COMPEL PLAINTIFF TO ACCEPT THE ANSWER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM AGAINST THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED, EVEN IF THE EXCUSE FOR FAILURE TO TIMELY FILE WAS NOT REASONABLE, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS NOT PREJUDICED BY THE DELAY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED HE WOULD NOT HAVE PLED GUILTY HAD HIS COUNSEL TOLD HIM DEPORTATION WAS MANDATORY, CONVICTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF PLAINTIFF’S ESTATE FOR THE DECEASED PLAINTIFF PROPERLY DENIED BECAUSE THE DELAY IN SEEKING SUBSTITUTION WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE MERITS WERE NOT DESCRIBED, AND THE EXISTENCE OF PREJUDICE WAS NOT REBUTTED, HOWEVER THE ACTION COULD NOT BE DISMISSED ABSENT THE SUBSTITUTION OF A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE (SECOND DEPT).
FAILURE TO PROVE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE-OF-FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS OF RPAPL 1304 REQUIRED REVERSAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT (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

THE NOTICES OF CLAIM NOTIFIED THE MUNICIPAL DEFENDANTS ONLY OF THE DAMAGES RELATING... THE SURGICAL PROCEDURE FOR WHICH THERE ALLEGEDLY WAS NO CONSENT WAS NOT DEMONSTRATED...