You are here: / Fraud
, ,

THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over an extensive two-judge concurring opinion and an extensive dissent, determined that some of the claims in this deceptive-practices/fraud action involving residential mortgage backed securities may not be time-barred. The Appellate Division had held both the General Business Law (Martin Act) and Executive Law claims were subject to the three-year statute of limitations for statutory violations and were therefore untimely. The Court of Appeals agreed the Martin Act claims were time-barred but ruled the Executive Law claims may not be time-barred if they are based entirely on the elements of common law fraud subject to a six-year statute of limitations:

… [T]he Martin Act imposes numerous obligations — or “liabilities” — that did not exist at common law, justifying the imposition of a three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214(2). The broad definition of “fraudulent practices,” as repeatedly amended by the Legislature and interpreted by the courts, encompasses “wrongs” not cognizable under the common law and dispenses, among other things, with any requirement that the Attorney General prove scienter or justifiable reliance on the part of investors. * * *

… [W]hile the lower courts concluded that a six-year statute of limitations applied to defendants’ Executive Law § 63(12) claim — regardless of whether the specific elements of common law fraud had been made out — that holding was not correct. Rather, it is necessary to examine whether the conduct underlying the Executive Law § 63(12) claim amounts to a type of fraud recognized in the common law and, if so, the action will be governed by a six-year statute of limitations … . Although the parties raised various arguments with respect to this question, not all the issues were addressed or resolved by the lower courts. A remittal — which permits consideration of the question in the current procedural posture — is therefore appropriate. If it is determined that the prima facie elements of a common law cause of action were made out in this case, the Attorney General will be obliged to demonstrate each such element at the proof stage or the claim will be subject to dismissal as time-barred. People v Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 04272, Ct App 6-12-18

CIVIL PROCEDURE (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/SECURITIES  (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES  (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))FRAUD (RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/CPLR 213  (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/CPLR 214 (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/GENERAL BUSINESS LAW (MARTIN ACT, THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/EXECUTIVE LAW (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))/MARTIN ACT  (THE MARTIN ACT CLAIMS IN THIS DECEPTIVE PRACTICES ACTION INVOLVING RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES ARE TIME-BARRED UNDER THE THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR STATUTORY VIOLATIONS, BUT THE EXECUTIVE LAW CLAIMS MAY NOT BE TIME-BARRED IF THEY ARE BASED SOLELY ON THE ELEMENTS OF COMMON LAW FRAUD SUBJECT TO THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CT APP))

, ,

DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined plaintiffs’ cause of action for conversion should not have been dismissed and the cause action for fraud in the inducement was based upon non-actionable future conduct or events and non-actionable opinion. Plaintiffs hired defendant for extensive renovation work. Plaintiffs terminated the contract based upon defendant’s allegedly fraudulent requests for payment which were not used for the claimed purposes. When plaintiffs terminated the contract they demanded the return of $400,000 of the $840,000 they had paid. Defendant returned only about $85,000 and did not provide an accounting:

When plaintiffs terminated the contract mid-construction and demanded a return of $400,000 of the $840,000 they had paid, defendant allegedly returned only $84,622.65, without providing an accounting, and allegedly diverted the balance of such monies to his personal use. These allegations sufficiently state a cause of action for conversion … .

Plaintiffs’ cause of action alleging fraud in the inducement was properly dismissed, as it is founded upon non-actionable promises of future conduct or events, rather than present fact … and non-actionable opinion of defendant as to his entity’s resources and capability of undertaking the luxury renovation work sought by plaintiffs … . Yablon v Stern, 2018 NY Slip Op 03650, First Dept 5-22-18

​CONTRACT LAW (DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT))/CONVERSION (DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT (DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED FAILURE TO REPAY MONEY PAID BY PLAINTIFFS PURSUANT TO A CONTRACT WHICH HAD BEEN TERMINATED STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR CONVERSION, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT CAUSE OF ACTION PROPERLY DISMISSED BECAUSE IT WAS BASED UPON NON-ACTIONABLE FUTURE EVENTS AND NON-ACTIONABLE OPINION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined, although the usual rule is one who signs an agreement is deemed to have read it, the rule may not apply when there is a relationship of trust and confidence between the parties and reliance on the assurances of a party (here the parties to a trust agreement were father and son). Plaintiff alleged he was fraudulently induced to sign the agreement. The court noted that a certified, unsigned transcript of a deposition was admissible because the transcript had been mailed to opposing counsel more than 60 days before the motion was brought:

Plaintiff’s claim … is that defendant led him to believe that the documentation that defendant presented for his signature (a trust agreement and two deeds) was for the conveyance of [one condominium unit] only. In fact, the paperwork provided for the conveyance of [two condominium units] to the trust. Ordinarily a person is bound by the terms of an instrument he or she signs, and may not claim to have justifiably relied on false representations concerning the contents of a document that he or she failed to read without valid excuse … . In this case, however, whether this principle applies to bar plaintiff’s fraudulent inducement claim … cannot be determined as a matter of law because plaintiff alleges that he and defendant, his son, had a relationship of trust and confidence … . Tsai Chung Chao v Chao, 2018 NY Slip Op 03620, First Dept 5-17-18

​CONTRACT LAW (ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, ALTHOUGH A PARTY WHO SIGNS AN AGREEMENT IS USUALLY DEEMED TO HAVE READ IT, A RELATIONSHIP OF TRUST AND CONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES MAY ALLOW ONE PARTY TO RELY ON THE ASSURANCES OF THE OTHER, A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))/DEPOSITIONS (A CERTIFIED BUT UNSIGNED TRANSCRIPT OF A DEPOSITION WAS ADMISSIBLE BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN TIMELY MAILED TO OPPOSING COUNSEL (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a memorandum decision that does not lay out the facts, determined that, although the defendant directors on the board of Gerova did not reside or do business in New York, other Gerova defendants participated in the fraudulent scheme in New York thereby providing a sufficient basis for long-arm jurisdiction (the decision doesn’t indicate what “Gerova” is):

The Supreme Court properly concluded that defendants are subject to jurisdiction under New York’s long-arm statute because they were part of a conspiracy that involved the commission of tortious acts in New York (CPLR 302[a][2]…). Defendants were directors on Gerova’s board during most of the time when Gerova was involved in a fraudulent scheme. The amended complaint details the conspiracy to commit fraud using Gerova, the agreements … to loot Wimbledon (plaintiff), and Wimbledon’s resulting insolvency … . Although defendants did not reside or do business in New York, other Gerova defendants were in New York or interacted regularly with New York, including one of the masterminds of the fraudulent scheme … . Regarding their overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendants’ approval of a Gerova proxy statement on which they are listed and which seeks approval of the sham acquisition of a reinsurance company, their receipt of “hush money” to ignore certain red flags at Gerova, and their failure to correct misrepresentations or disclose material information to the public sufficed at this stage. Although defendants did not mastermind the conspiracy, their receipt of “hush money” allows the reasonable inference that they exerted “control” to the extent that the fraud could not have been accomplished without their acquiescence to the proxy and other misconduct … . Wimbledon Fin. Master Fund, Ltd. v Weston Capital Mgt. LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02903, First Dept 4-26-18

​CIVIL PROCEDURE (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/LONG-ARM JURISDICTION  (ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (CIVIL PROCEDURE, JURISDICTION, CONSPIRACY ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))/CONSPIRACY (CIVIL PROCEDURE, LONG-ARM JURISDICTION, FRAUDULENT SCHEME, ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT DIRECTORS ON THE BOARD OF GEROVA DID NOT RESIDE OR DO BUSINESS IN NEW YORK, OTHER GEROVA DEFENDANTS PARTICIPATED IN THE FRAUDULENT SCHEME IN NEW YORK, THEREBY PROVIDING A SUFFICIENT BASIS FOR LONG-ARM JURISDICTION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined the plaintiffs had stated causes of action against the sellers (the Lyubarskys) of a condominium for fraudulently concealing mold and water damage in the condominium and in the common areas. The complaint also alleged plaintiffs’ attorney committed malpractice in representing them in the purchase. The court explained the how the doctrine of caveat emptor (buyer beware) relates to the allegations in the complaint:

“New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no liability on a seller for failing to disclose information regarding the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes active concealment”… . “If however, some conduct (i.e., more than mere silence) on the part of the seller rises to the level of active concealment, a seller may have a duty to disclose information concerning the property”… . “To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” … .

Here, accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiff the benefit of every possible favorable inference… , the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud on the theory that the Lyubarskys actively concealed defects throughout the common areas of the condominium building. The complaint alleges that the Lyubarskys took several steps to hide the existence of leaks and mold damage including, inter alia, claiming that they had lost the key to the storage area in the cellar which was assigned to the subject condominium, and removing and replacing damaged sheetrock from the cellar and the parking area. These allegations, if true, might have thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill her responsibilities imposed by the doctrine of caveat emptor with respect to the common areas of the building … . Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky, 2018 NY Slip Op 02817, Second Dept 4-25-18

​REAL ESTATE (COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/FRAUD (REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/CAVEAT EMPTOR  (REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/NEGLIGENCE (ATTORNEYS, REAL ESTATE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/LEGAL MALPRACTICE (REAL ESTATE,  COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (REAL ESTATE, MALPRACTICE, COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SELLERS OF A CONDOMINIUM FOR FRAUDULENTLY CONCEALING MOLD AND WATER DAMAGE IN THE CONDOMINIUM AND COMMON AREAS, THE COMPLAINT ALSO STATED A MALPRACTICE CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE BUYERS’ ATTORNEY (SECOND DEPT))

,

THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The Second Department determined the expense required to defend an action that resulted from an attorney’s misrepresentation can meet the injury requirement of a Judiciary Law 487 cause of action:

Judiciary Law § 487 imposes civil and criminal liability on any attorney who “(1) [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party; or, (2) [w]ilfully delays his client’s suit with a view to his own gain”… . A plaintiff may state a Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action by relying upon a defendant’s intentional deceit during the course of an underlying action … . A cause of action alleging a violation of Judiciary Law § 487 must be pleaded with specificity … and is “focuse[d] on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not the deceit’s success” … . Accordingly, although injury to the plaintiff is an essential element of a Judiciary Law § 487 cause of action … , “recovery of treble damages under Judiciary Law § 487 does not depend upon the court’s belief in a material misrepresentation of fact in a complaint”… . Rather, because defending the action is a result of the misrepresentation, a party’s legal expenses in defending the lawsuit may be treated as the proximate result of the misrepresentation … . Betz v Blatt, 2018 NY Slip Op 02444, Second Dept 4-11-18

​ATTORNEYS (JUDICIARY LAW 487, THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/JUDICIARY LAW 487 (ATTORNEYS, THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (ATTORNEYS, JUDICIARY LAW 487, THE EXPENSE OF DEFENDING AN ACTION WHICH STEMMED FROM AN ATTORNEY’S MISREPRESENTATION CAN MEET THE INJURY REQUIREMENT OF A JUDICIARY LAW 487 ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

, ,

FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the defendants’ counterclaims against their attorney, David, stated causes of action for fraud, fraud in the inducement, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. Defendants alleged that David’s assurances led defendants to sign joint venture agreements to their detriment without carefully reading them. The court noted that, although David was not a signatory to the agreements, the forum selection clauses applied to him because of his relationship with the defendants, as expressed in an email:

The allegations of the complaint state a cause of action for fraudulent inducement … . The well settled principle relied on by David that a party claiming fraudulent inducement cannot be said to have justifiably relied on a representation negated by the plain terms of the contract they signed does not apply here, since his alleged assurances and fraud were the very cause of defendants’ failure to review the documents carefully. As it was reasonable for defendants to rely on the advice of counsel, we also reject David’s arguments premised on the plain language of the agreements that defendants admit they did not read carefully.

Defendants’ allegations describing their attorney-client relationship with David state a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty. For example, they allege that he served as their attorney for years, both before and during the instant transaction, negotiating unrelated contracts and handling unrelated lawsuits and trusts and estates matters.

While in support of the fraudulent inducement claim defendants allege that the agreements were “brought about by fraud,” because, inter alia, David held himself out as their attorney and caused them to sign unfavorable agreements that he drafted, in contrast, in support of the fraud claim defendants focus on events following the execution of the agreements, namely, David’s “scheme to manufacture a bogus default” of the loan so as to seize valuable collateral without paying for it. These allegations state a cause of action for fraud … . Suttongate Holdings Ltd. v Laconm Mgt. N.V., 2018 NY Slip Op 02424, First Dept 4-10-18

​FRAUD (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS  (FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))/FIDUCIARY DUTY, BREACH OF (ATTORNEYS, FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE APPLIES TO NONSIGNATORY ATTORNEY BASED UPON ATTORNEY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PARTIES, PARTIES’ FAILURE TO CAREFULLY READ THE AGREEMENTS BLAMED ON ATTORNEY’S FRAUDULENT ASSURANCES, FRAUD, FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT, BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY AND BREACH OF CONTRACT ALLEGATIONS AGAINST ATTORNEY STATED CAUSES OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the fraudulent conveyance allegations, which were made “upon information and belief,” were insufficient, and the tortious interference with contract allegations were insufficient because there was no allegation the contract would not have been breached but for the defendant’s conduct:

Plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in a fraudulent scheme to transfer and dispose of the assets of several related entities (the judgment debtors) in order to thwart plaintiff’s ability to collect debts owed by those entities, including judgments in two related actions.

The actual fraudulent conveyance claims, under the common law and Debtor and Creditor Law (DCL) § 276, should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to allege fraudulent intent with the particularity required by CPLR 3016(b) … . The key allegations were made “[u]pon information and belief,” without identifying the source of the information … . Moreover, the timing of the allegedly fraudulent transfers – beginning two years before the judgment debtors incurred the subject debts – undermines the claim of fraudulent intent… .

The constructive fraudulent conveyance claims pursuant to DCL 273, 274, and 275 should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the transfers were made without fair consideration, as the relevant allegations were all made “[u]pon information and belief”…

Because the viability of the claims under DCL 276-a, 278, and 279 depends on the viability of the other fraudulent conveyance claims, these claims should likewise be dismissed.

The tortious interference claim should be dismissed because plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege that the contract “would not have been breached but for’ the defendant’s conduct” .. . The relevant allegations were vague and conclusory and supported by “mere speculation” … . Carlyle, LLC v Quik Park 1633 Garage LLC, 2018 NY Slip Op 02436, First Dept 4-10-18

​DEBTOR-CREDITOR (FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCES (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT (FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CPLR 3016 (DEBTOR-CREDITOR, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF (COMPLAINT, (FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/COMPLAINT (UPON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE, TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT, AND DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION INSUFFICIENTLY PLED, COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

, , ,

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action based upon a cancer misdiagnosis was time-barred. The misdiagnosis was made before the statute of limitations for cancer misdiagnosis was changed (it now runs from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the misdiagnosis). The court rejected the attempt to extend the statute of limitations by asserting fraud-related causes of action based upon the malpractice and alleged concealment of the misdiagnosis:

Defendants … contend that plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for fraud or fraudulent concealment, and that they are not estopped from invoking the statute of limitations against plaintiff’s medical malpractice cause of action. We agree. “The elements of a cause of action for fraud in connection with charges of medical malpractice are knowledge on the part of the physician of the fact of his [or her] malpractice and of [the] patient’s injury in consequence thereof, coupled with a subsequent intentional, material misrepresentation by [the physician] to [the] patient known by [the physician] to be false at the time it was made, and on which the patient [justifiably] relied to his [or her] damage’ ” … . “The damages resulting from the fraud must be separate and distinct from those generated by the alleged malpractice” … . Additionally, “a defendant may be estopped to plead the [s]tatute of [l]imitations where [the] plaintiff was induced by fraud, misrepresentations or deception to refrain from filing a timely action”… . However, “without more, concealment by a physician or failure to disclose his [or her] own malpractice does not give rise to a cause of action in fraud or deceit separate and different from the customary malpractice action, thereby entitling the plaintiff to bring his [or her] action within the longer period limited for such claims” … . Forbes v Caris Life Sciences, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 02086, Fourth Dept 3-23-18

NEGLIGENCE (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE  (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/FRAUD (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS (CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))/CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS (STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION BASED UPON CANCER MISDIAGNOSIS PRIOR TO THE RELEVANT AMENDMENT OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS WAS TIME-BARRED, FRAUD-RELATED CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REJECTED (FOURTH DEPT))

, , ,

PLAINTIFF ALLEGED CONTINUING BREACHES OF CONTRACT, AIDING AND ABETTING FRAUD, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION AND AIDING AND ABETTING BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY FOR THE DURATION OF THE DEBT-RIDDEN WORKERS’ COMPENSATION TRUST, WHICH WAS TERMINATED 25 DAYS BEFORE THE EXPIRATION OF THE SIX YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, modifying Supreme Court, determined the causes of action for breach of contract, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation, and aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty should not have been dismissed as time barred. The underlying suit is based on the allegation that defendant insurance broker was on the board of a Workers’ Compensation trust, which plaintiff had joined, and which was $82 million in debt. The Third Department held that the six-year statute of limitations applied to all the (above-described) causes of action and the complaint alleged continuing breaches throughout the period of membership in the trust, which terminated 25 days before the expiration of the statute of limitations (i.e., the six-year period before the suit was brought extended back to March 24, 2008, and the trust was terminated on April 17, 2008):

… [T]he amended complaint alleges continuing contractual obligations on the part of defendant and specifies that the various acts and omissions constituting the breaches occurred “[t]hroughout the entire course of [p]laintiff’s membership in the [t]rust.” Deeming these allegations as true and according them every favorable inference, as we must … , we conclude that defendant failed to make the requisite prima facie showing that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim is time-barred in its entirety … . …

[P]laintiff’s causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and aiding and abetting fraud are timely insofar as they allege conduct occurring [during the 25 day window]. …

… [W]e disagree with Supreme Court’s conclusion that the entirety of plaintiff’s aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty claim is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. Because plaintiff does not seek equitable relief, a six-year statute of limitations period applies to a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action if “an allegation of fraud is essential to” such claim … . While a claim of fraud generally requires an affirmative misrepresentation, “fraud may also result from a fiduciary’s failure to disclose material facts when the fiduciary had a duty to disclose and acted with the intent to deceive” … . Krog Corp. v Vanner Group, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 00876, Third Dept 2-8-18

 

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