You are here: / / A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES...
,

A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED.

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the motion to dismiss the complaint alleging fraud should not have been granted, and the motion to amend the complaint to allege negligent misrepresentation should have been granted. Supreme Court ruled that plaintiff was a sophisticated lender and made the loan without performing due diligence (and therefore could not allege justifiable reliance on any misrepresentations). The First Department held that plaintiff’s request for and receipt of written assurances was sufficient due diligence:

A sophisticated party is generally required to exercise due diligence to verify the facts represented to it before entering into a business transaction … . The Court of Appeals has recognized, however, that, “where a plaintiff has gone to the trouble to insist on a written representation that certain facts are true, it will often be justified in accepting that representation rather than making its own inquiry” … . In this case, plaintiff alleges that it made the loan … in reliance on [defendant] Noto’s opinion letter, which was specifically addressed to plaintiff, in which Noto opined that the loan transaction would not put [any party] into breach of any preexisting contract or agreement … . Plaintiff alleges that this representation was false, inasmuch as the undisclosed 2005 letter agreement required [maintenance of] a $2 million cushion of “unencumbered equity” in the property in any refinancing, and — given that the true value of the property was only $1.9 million, based on the terms of the undisclosed 2005 transaction — plaintiff’s $6.6 million loan … wiped out any such equity in the property. Remediation Capital Funding LLC v Noto, 2017 NY Slip Op 01119, 1st Dept 2-10-17

CONTRACT LAW (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/FRAUD (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/MISREPRESENTATION (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED).SOPHISTICATED PARTY (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)/DUE DILIGENCE (A SOPHISTICATED PARTY’S REQUEST FOR AND RECEIPT OF WRITTEN ASSURANCES FROM DEFENDANT WAS A VALID SUBSTITUTE FOR A DUE DILIGENCE INQUIRY, SUPREME COURT’S DISMISSAL OF FRAUD ACTION REVERSED)

You might also like
THE JUDGE DID NOT MAKE THE REQUIRED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BEFORE DETERMINING DEFENDANT’S SORA RISK-LEVEL; MATTER REMITTED (SECOND DEPT). ​
7/8 INCH HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND DOORWAY THRESHOLD WAS DEEMED TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE; THE NYC BUILDING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL OF NO MORE THAN 1/2 INCH, DID NOT APPLY TO THE HOME PURCHASED IN 1980 (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER BRICKS WHICH STRUCK PLAINTIFF WERE DELIBERATELY DROPPED, WHICH WOULD NOT BE COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240 (1) (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).
ALTHOUGH THE RECORDS OF TRAFFIC INFRACTIONS ARE SEALED PURSUANT TO CPL 160.55, THE RECORDS OF A VIOLATION OF NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE 19-190(b), AN UNCLASSIFIED MISDEMEANOR WHICH CRIMINALIZES STRIKING A PEDESTRIAN WHO HAS THE RIGHT OF WAY, ARE NOT SEALED; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF IS ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THOSE RECORDS IN THIS VEHICLE-PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENT CASE (FIRST DEPT).
THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS BEGAN TO RUN WHEN THE LANDLORD COULD HAVE DEMANDED PAYMENT PURSUANT TO THE LEASE, NOT WHEN THE DEMAND WAS ACTUALLY MADE YEARS LATER (FIRST DEPT).
DEFENDANT GYM DID NOT DEMONSTRATE AN ACCUMULATION OF DUST ON THE BASKETBALL COURT FLOOR WAS INHERENT IN THE SPORT OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK DOCTRINE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
CPLR 7515, ENACTED IN 2018, DOES NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROHIBIT MANDATORY ARBITRATION OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT CLAIMS (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

DISCLAIMER IN SUBCONTRACT IS AMBIGUOUS, MOTION TO DISMISS FRAUD COUNTERCLAIM... INSUFFICIENT PROOF GUNSHOT CAUSED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY, ASSAULT FIRST CONVICTION...