You are here: / Fraud Action Based Upon Statements of Opinion Properly Pled/Negligent Misrepresentation...

Search Results

/ , ,

Fraud Action Based Upon Statements of Opinion Properly Pled/Negligent Misrepresentation Not Properly Pled–No Allegation of Privity or Privity-Like Relationship

In an action stemming from defendant-investment-ratings-agency’s high rating of worthless residential-mortgage-backed securities, the Fourth Department determined the complaint properly pled a fraud cause of action, even though based upon statements of opinion. The court further determined the negligent misrepresentation cause of action was deficient in that privity or a privity-like relationship was not alleged:

Although statements of opinion generally are not actionable in a fraud cause of action …, defendant correctly recognizes that statements of opinion may nevertheless be actionable as fraud if the plaintiff can plead and prove that the holder of the opinion did not subjectively believe the opinion at the time it was made and made the statement with the intent to deceive … . As one court has explained, a fraud claim based on an expression of opinion “is actionable in an appropriate case not because the opinion is objectively’ wrong. Rather, in an appropriate case it is actionable because the speaker either did not in fact hold the opinion stated or because the speaker subjectively was aware that there was no reasonable basis for it . . . In the first instance, the speaker will have lied as to his or her subjective mental state. In the second, he or she implicitly would have represented that there was a reasonable basis for the statement of opinion, knowing that the implicit representation was false” … . Here, we agree with defendant that its credit ratings were statements of opinion, not fact … , but we conclude that plaintiff adequately pleaded that defendant did not believe its opinions when it issued the ratings. Plaintiff set forth in detail the reasons why defendant was aware that the ratings were inflated, including its allegation that defendant failed to follow its own policies and procedures in determining the ratings. * * *

To establish a claim for negligent misrepresentation based on the allegedly inaccurate credit ratings, plaintiff must allege that “(1) the [defendant] must have been aware that the [ratings] were to be used for a particular purpose or purposes; (2) in the furtherance of which a known party . . . was intended to rely; and (3) there must have been some conduct on the part of the [defendant] linking [it] to that party . . . , which evinces the [defendant’s] understanding of that party[‘s] . . . reliance” … . “The indicia, while distinct, are interrelated and collectively require a third party claiming harm to demonstrate a relationship or bond with the once-removed [defendant] sufficiently approaching privity’ based on some conduct on the part of the [defendant]’ ” … .

The complaints here failed to plead that a special or privity-like relationship existed between plaintiff and defendant … . M&T Bank Corp. v McGraw-Hill Cos., Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02372, 4th Dept 3-20-15

 

/

Safety Device Requirement in Industrial Code Was Specific Enough to Support Labor Law 241(6) Action Based Upon the Absence of a Safety Guard on a Tile Grinder

The First Department, over a dissent, determined that a rule (Industrial Code) requiring that all safety devices be kept sound and operable was specific enough to support a Labor Law 241(6) action based upon the absence of safety guard from a tile grinder:

The motion court erred in finding that section 23-1.5(c)(3) was too general to support plaintiff’s Labor Law § 241(6) claim. Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5(c)(3) provides, “All safety devices, safeguards and equipment in use shall be kept sound and operable, and shall be immediately repaired or restored or immediately removed from the job site if damaged.” In Misicki v Caradonna (12 NY3d 511, 520-521 [2009]), the Court of Appeals held that the third sentence of 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a), which says, “Upon discovery, any structural defect or unsafe condition in such equipment shall be corrected by necessary repairs or replacement,” imposed an affirmative duty, rather than merely reciting common-law principles, and that therefore its violation was sufficiently specific to support a Labor Law § 241(6) claim. The regulation plaintiff relies on here, 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c), has a structure similar to 12 NYCRR 23-9.2(a): the first two sentences of section 23-9.2(a) and the first two paragraphs of section 23-1.5(c) employ general phrases (e.g., “good repair, “proper operating condition,” “sufficient inspections,” “adequate frequency”) while the third sentence and paragraph “mandate[] a distinct standard of conduct, rather than a general reiteration of common-law principles, and [are] precisely the type of concrete specification’ that Ross [v Curtis-Palmer Hydro-Elec. Co. (81 NY2d 494 [1993])] requires” (Misicki, 12 NY3d at 521). Since the final paragraph of section 23-1.5(c) is functionally indistinguishable from the third sentence of section 23-9.2(a), in that both mandate a distinct standard of conduct, we find that the Court of Appeals’ reasoning in Misicki applies here, and reject the dissent’s suggestion that the preamble of section 23-1.5 precludes any reliance on the section for purposes of Labor Law § 241(6). Becerra v Promenade Apts. Inc., 2015 NY Slip Op 02191, 1st Dept 3-19-15

 

/

“Wheel Stop” Is Open and Obvious

The First Department determined a “wheel stop” in a parking lot, over which plaintiff tripped, was open and obvious:

Defendants established their entitlement to judgment as a matter of law in this action where plaintiff was injured when she tripped and fell over a wheel stop in defendants’ parking lot in the early evening. Defendants submitted evidence showing that the wheel stop was an open and obvious condition and not inherently dangerous … . The evidence demonstrated that the wheel stop’s placement had been approved by the local zoning board, the parking lot lights had been set to turn on at 4:00 p.m., the lights were inspected daily and found to be in good condition on the following day, and there had been no prior complaints about the wheel stop or inadequate lighting.

In opposition, plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Her claim that an optical illusion created by inadequate lighting made the wheel stop less visible is insufficient to raise a triable issue of fact, as her testimony established that she was looking toward her car at the time of the accident … . Moreover, a photograph marked at her deposition reveals that the portion of the curb on which plaintiff allegedly tripped was near a light post … . Plaintiff’s affidavit in which she claimed to have been unable to see the surface of the parking lot and wheel stop directly contradicts her earlier testimony and raises only a feigned issue of fact … . Abraido v 2001 Marcus Ave., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02204, 1st Dept 3-19-15

 

/

Question of Fact Whether Nonowner Occupied and Controlled Premises Where Plaintiff Fell

The Third Department determined there were questions of fact whether a nonowner of a premises, 68 Weibel Avenue, occupied and controlled the premises such that a duty to use reasonable care re: the condition of the premises arose. The owner of the property (third-party defendant) is the father of two sisters who operate defendant business across the street at 75 Weibel Avenue.  There was testimony that defendant business also occupied and controlled the area where plaintiff slipped on ice at 68 Weibel Avenue:

A nonowner who occupies or controls premises has a duty to exercise reasonable care regarding the condition of the premises … . The boundaries of occupancy and extent of control are typically addressed in a written agreement, and may also be established or modified by a course of conduct … . The absence of a written agreement creates a situation ripe for factual issues regarding relevant rights and responsibilities to the premises … .

Here, there was no written agreement between defendant and third-party defendant regarding the premises. Defendant and third-party defendant had a close familial relationship, and it does not appear from the record that there was even an oral agreement specifically delineating their rights and responsibilities. In light of the absence of any agreement, defendant’s conduct regarding the premises is particularly pertinent. Plaintiff testified that, although defendant had a retail store across the road at 75 Weibel Avenue, he was directed by defendant to make deliveries at the 68 Weibel Avenue shop. He recalled that an owner or an employee of defendant was always present at such address when he made a delivery. While there were other businesses that used the parking lot at 68 Weibel Avenue, plaintiff stated that there were never vehicles directly in front of defendant’s shop other than a vehicle of an employee/owner of defendant. He parked at such location in front of the shop when making deliveries and was so parked on the date of his accident. A freestanding sign for defendant’s business was located outside the building at 68 Weibel Avenue and in the vicinity where plaintiff parked. We agree with Supreme Court that, under the circumstances, there are triable issues of fact as to whether defendant exercised control over the pertinent part of the 68 Weibel Avenue premises. Contreras v Randi’s Enter., LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 02165, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

/ , , ,

Sufficient Factual Allegations of Malpractice Not Made/Denial of Motion to Reargue Appealable as of Right Because the Merits Were Dealt with By the Motion Court

The Third Department, in affirming the dismissal of a legal malpractice complaint, determined that the fact that the motion court dealt with the merits of a motion to reargue while denying it rendered the denial appealable as of right:

As a general proposition, “no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue” … . Where, however, the court actually addresses the merits of the moving party’s motion, we will deem the court to have granted reargument and adhered to its prior decision — notwithstanding language in the order indicating that reargument was denied … . Accordingly, Supreme Court’s April 2013 order is appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2] [viii]…). * * *

To survive defendants’ motion to dismiss, it was incumbent upon plaintiff to, among other things, “plead specific factual allegations establishing that but for counsel’s deficient representation, there would have been a more favorable outcome to the underlying matter” … , i.e., an earlier — and successful — award of partial summary judgment on the issue of liability. This plaintiff failed to do. Rodriguez v Jacoby & Meyers, LLP, 2015 NY Slip Op 02151, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

 

/

Drivers Transporting Patients to a Physical Therapy Facility Are Employees Not Independent Contractors

The Third Department determined drivers for Agewell, a physical therapy center, (bringing patients to the facility) were employees, not independent contractors:

Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the appeal board, if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary conclusion” … . An employment relationship will be found “when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results,” with “‘control over the means [being] the more important factor'” … . In contrast, “[i]ncidental control over the results produced,” such as supplying form contracts, requiring periodic reports and attendance at meetings, giving instruction on what to wear or how to make a presentation, “without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results[,] will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship” … .

Here, the evidence presented at the hearing demonstrated that Agewell set the driver’s schedules, determining the order in which multiple clients would be picked up, and required the drivers to sign in and out. Drivers typically used Agewell’s vehicles with the company logo on them and its credit card when putting gas into the vehicles, but were reimbursed if they used their own vehicles. Claimant further testified that shirts and jackets with the company logo were provided and that he typically wore them, along with a name tag. Agewell also fielded complaints from clients and provided feedback to the drivers on their performance. Drivers were allowed to pursue their own business interests and many did, including claimant. Notwithstanding the existence of evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the control retained by Agewell was more than incidental and sufficient to establish that claimant was its employee and not an independent contractor … . Matter of McAlevey (Agewell Physical Therapy & Wellness, P.C.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02179, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

/

Claimant Was an Employee of a Cleaning and Janitorial Service

The Third Department determined claimant was an employee of a cleaning and janitorial service, Shield Cleaners:

“Whether an employment relationship exists within the meaning of the unemployment insurance law is a question of fact, no one factor is determinative and the determination of the appeal board, if supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole, is beyond further judicial review even though there is evidence in the record that would have supported a contrary conclusion” … . An employment relationship will be found “when the evidence shows that the employer exercises control over the results produced or the means used to achieve the results,” with “‘control over the means [being] the more important factor'” … . In contrast, “[i]ncidental control over the results produced,” such as supplying form contracts, requiring periodic reports and attendance at meetings, giving instruction on what to wear or how to make a presentation, “without further indicia of control over the means employed to achieve the results[,] will not constitute substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship” … .

Here, claimant testified that Shield Cleaning contacted her with assignments and told her how long to spend at each assignment, and that she was required to accept unless she was performing another assignment or could produce documentation, such as a doctor’s note, to show why she was not at work. Shield Cleaning worked out the requirements in advance and memorialized the agreements with the client in writing. Claimant was paid by the hour, required to submit time sheets, had a certain percentage of her paycheck deducted as insurance and agreed in writing not to solicit any of Shield Cleaning’s clients as her own. She was also provided with supplies to perform her work and a t-shirt with the company’s logo and telephone number on it. Claimant was paid regardless of whether the client paid, and any complaints about the work were directed to Shield Cleaning, rather than claimant. Notwithstanding the existence of evidence in the record to support a contrary conclusion, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s conclusion that the control retained by Shield Cleaning was more than incidental and sufficient to establish that claimant was its employee and not an independent contractor … . Matter of Dwightmoore (Lawrence M. Fanfair–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02182, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

/

Arbitrator Exceeded Her Powers to Modify an Award and Failed to Make a “Final and Definite” Award

The Third Department determined the arbitrator had exceeded her authority when she did not merely correct a miscalculation, but rather made new findings when modifying an award.  The court further determined that the arbitrator initially did not make a “final and definite” award when she failed to take into account a stipulation between the parties:

…[T]he arbitrator’s modification of the original award exceeded the narrow grounds set forth in CPLR 7511 (c). A review of the modified award reveals that the arbitrator did not simply correct a “miscalculation of figures . . . in the [original] award” (CPLR 7511 [c] [1]) but, rather, made new factual findings as to the applicability of the parties’ apparent stipulation relative to petitioner’s counterclaim and its corresponding impact upon the moneys awarded, i.e., the arbitrator impermissibly revisited the merits of the parties’ dispute. Under these circumstances, the modified award was properly vacated … .

We also are persuaded that Supreme Court properly vacated the original arbitration award and remanded the matter to the arbitrator for a rehearing (see CPLR 7511 [d]). CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii) permits a court to vacate an arbitration award if the court finds that a party’s rights were prejudiced because the arbitrator, in making such an award, either “exceeded his [or her] power or so imperfectly executed it that a final and definite award upon the subject matter submitted was not made.” Although we find no basis upon which to conclude that the arbitrator exceeded her authority in rendering the initial award, we agree with Supreme Court that, by failing to address the existence and/or content of the parties’ purported stipulation, ascertain whether the contested funds were in fact withheld by petitioner prior to the start of the arbitration and assess the corresponding impact, if any, upon petitioner’s counterclaim, the arbitrator “so imperfectly executed” her powers that “a final and definite award” was not in fact made (CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]). Matter of Delaney Group, Inc. (Holmgren Enters., Inc.), 2015 NY Slip Op 02174, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

/ , ,

The “Strict Compliance” Rule Re: Documents Required for a Drawdown from a Letter of Credit Explained

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Saxe, determined that minor discrepancies in the documents required by a letter of credit as a prerequisite for a drawdown did not violate the “strict compliance” rule.  Here a true copy of a document, rather than the original, was submitted.  The true copy was deemed to satisfy the “strict compliance” rule:

…[A]pplying the standard of strict compliance, plaintiff’s drawdown request should have been honored because, under these circumstances, the production of a true copy of amendment 2, instead of an original, was sufficient even to satisfy the strict compliance standard.

Strict compliance has been said to require that “the papers, documents and shipping directions . . . be followed as stated in the letter [of credit],” that “[n]o substitution and no equivalent, through interpretation or logic, will serve,” and that “[t]here is no room for documents which are almost the same, or which will do just as well” … . Even slight discrepancies in compliance with the terms of a letter of credit have been held to justify refusal to pay … .

“The [strict compliance] rule finds justification in the bank’s role in the transaction being ministerial . . . and to require it to determine the substantiality of discrepancies would be inconsistent with its function” … . The “reason for the strict [compliance] rule is to protect the issuer from having to know the commercial impact of a discrepancy in the documents” … .

However, as this Court has recently observed, “According to the official UCC commentary, the strict compliance standard does not require that the documents presented by the beneficiary be exact in every detail” (BasicNet S.P.A v CFP Servs., Ltd., __ AD3d __, __, 2015 NY Slip Op 02080, [1st Dept 2015]) [summarized directly below]. The doctrine of strict compliance “does not mean slavish conformity to the terms of the letter of credit . . . [and] does not demand oppressive perfectionism” (id., quoting Official Comment 1, reprinted in McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 62½, UCC 5-108 at 367). Ladenburg Thalmann & Co, Inc. v Signature Bank, 2015 NY Slip Op 02224, 1st Dept 3-19-15

 

/ , ,

Criteria for Presentation of Exculpatory Evidence to the Grand Jury Explained (Not Met Here)

The Third Department explained the prosecutor’s obligations re: the presentation of exculpatory evidence to the grand jury. [The decision also includes good discussions the criteria re: (1) shackling defendant during pre-trial hearings, (2) the court’s discretion to deny defendant’s request to call a witness (the victim) at the Wade hearing, and (3) serious prosecutorial misconduct, which are worth reading, although reversible error was not found.]:

With respect to the issue of exculpatory evidence, “[t]he People generally enjoy wide discretion in presenting their case to the [g]rand [j]ury and are not obligated to search for evidence favorable to the defense or to present all evidence in their possession that is favorable to the accused even though such information undeniably would allow the [g]rand [j]ury to make a more informed determination. . . . [Nor] do the People have the same obligation of disclosure at the [g]rand [j]ury stage as they have at the trial stage” … . Here, the exculpatory evidence cited by defendant “bore principally upon the victim’s credibility and, as such, was more appropriately reserved for presentation to the petit jury than to the [g]rand [j]ury” … . People v Goldston, 2015 NY Slip Op 02146, 3rd Dept 3-19-15

 

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