You are here: / Fraud
, ,

HERE THE MOTION TO RENEW, BASED UPON A CHANGE IN OR CLARIFICATION OF THE LAW, SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED DESPITE THE APPELLATE RULING ON THE PRIOR ORDER (FIRST DEPT).

he First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendant landlord’s motion to renew based upon a change in the law should have been granted}

On appeal, this Court agreed with defendant that the law as it existed prior to enactment of the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019 (HSTPA) applies in this case. However, we found that plaintiffs had raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the landlord engaged in a fraudulent scheme [to deregulate apartments]. Accordingly, we affirmed denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion.

In April 2023, defendant moved in Supreme Court for renewal of its summary judgment motion. Defendant argued that Casey v Whitehouse Estates, Inc. (39 NY3d 1104 [2023]) supported its position on the summary judgment motion. The motion court denied the motion to renew and did not reach the substantive issue raised by defendant.

Contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, a court of original jurisdiction may entertain a motion for leave to renew based on an alleged change in or clarification of the law, “even after an appellate court has rendered a decision” on the prior order … . Accordingly, defendant’s motion to renew its summary judgment motion should be granted. 435 Cent. Park W. Tenant Assn. v Park Front Apts., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 01157, First Dept 2-27-25

Practice Point: Even where the denial of summary judgment has been affirmed on appeal, a motion to renew based upon a change in or clarification of the law should be granted.​

 

, ,

WHERE THE ONLY RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY IS MONEY DAMAGES, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IS THREE YEARS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the “breach of fiduciary duty” cause of action was subject to a three-year, not a six-year, statute of limitations and was time-barred:

“‘New York law does not provide a single statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary duty claims'” … . Rather, “[t]he statute of limitations for a cause of action sounding in breach of fiduciary duty is dependent on the relief sought” … . Generally, “[a] cause of action [alleging] breach of fiduciary duty is governed by a six-year statute of limitations where the relief sought is equitable in nature (see CPLR 213[1]), or by a three-year statute of limitations where the only relief sought is money damages (see CPLR 214[4])” … . “Moreover, where an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)” … . “The statute of limitations for a cause of action alleging a breach of fiduciary duty does not begin to run until the fiduciary has openly repudiated his or her obligation or the relationship has been otherwise terminated” … . Berejka v Huntington Med. Group, P.C., 2025 NY Slip Op 00942, Second Dept 2-19-25

Practice Point: Where the relief sought for breach of fiduciary duty is equitable, or where fraud is an essential element, the applicable statute of limitations is six years. Where the only relief sought is money damages, the applicable statute of limitations in three years.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT BASED UPON LAW OFFICE FAILURE AND PROOF OF A MERITORIOUS DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants motion to vacate the default judgment based upon law office failure should have been granted:

In support of the motion to vacate, defendants affirmed that they had retained former counsel and that he had informed them that he would file an answer, but his office failed to do so. However, they did not become aware of this failure until they were served with the default. Although defendants could have provided stronger support by way of an affirmation from former counsel to better substantiate their claim of law office failure, this is not required. Markedly, plaintiff’s submissions in support of his application for costs — included in the record before this Court — establish that his counsel’s office was aware that defendants were represented. In fact, plaintiff’s counsel’s billing records specifically name former counsel and set forth that he was “attorney for defendant[s].” These billing records further demonstrate that plaintiff’s counsel had conversed with former counsel and been informed that an answer was being prepared. These facts, in conjunction with the short duration between entry of default in July 2023 and the subsequent motion to vacate in September 2023, establish that plaintiff was not prejudiced by the delay, and that defendants’ failure to file an answer was the result of law office failure and not willfulness on the part of defendants … . * * *

“To establish the existence of a potentially meritorious defense, defendants needed only to make a prima facie showing of legal merit, as the quantum of proof needed to prevail on a CPLR 5015 (a) (1) motion is less than that required when opposing a summary judgment motion” … . In consideration of this minimal standard of proof, defendants’ sworn assertions that plaintiff fraudulently induced them to enter the contract and then breached the contract before any breach on their part establishes a potentially meritorious defense … . Darling v Fernette, 2025 NY Slip Op 00507, Third Dept 1-30-25

Practice Point: Consult this decision for the criteria for vacating a default judgment based upon law officer failure, and for demonstrating a meritorious defense to a breach of contract action.

 

,

IT WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED THE RELEASE WAS INDUCED BY FRAUD; THE COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the complaint should not have been dismissed on the basis of the release because it was sufficiently alleged the release was induced by fraud:

Plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleges that the general release that was the basis for dismissal of the complaint was fraudulently induced based on defendant’s misrepresentations upon which plaintiff justifiably relied … . For example, the complaint alleges, among other things, that defendant induced plaintiff’s signature on the release by stating that if plaintiff did not sign, defendant would withdraw a New York Gaming Commission complaint that plaintiff had urged defendant to file, when, in fact, there was no complaint to withdraw because defendant had falsely represented he had filed the complaint.

Upon a “detailed analysis of whether plaintiff had sufficiently alleged the existence of overreaching or unfair circumstances such that enforcement of the general release[] would be inequitable” … , we concluded that dismissal of the complaint based on the release was not warranted. Jones v Jacobs, 2025 NY Slip Op 00377, First Dept 1-23-25

Practice Point: Here the complaint sufficiently alleged the release was induced by fraud. The complaint should not have been dismissed based on the release.​

 

,

THE COMPLAINT AGAINST ATTORNEYS STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR “DECEIT AND COLLUSION” PURSUANT TO JUDICIARY LAW 487 WHICH IS NOT THE SAME AS COMMON LAW FRAUD; THERE IS NO NEED TO SHOW A PARTY WAS MISLED BY THE ATTORNEY’S INTENTIONAL FALSE STATEMENTS (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the complaint stated a cause of action against an attorney (Moore) for “deceit and collusion” within the meaning of Judiciary Law 487:

Judiciary Law § 487 provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n attorney or counselor who . . . [i]s guilty of any deceit or collusion, or consents to any deceit or collusion, with intent to deceive the court or any party . . . [i]s guilty of a misdemeanor, and in addition to the punishment prescribed therefor by the penal law, he forfeits to the party injured treble damages, to be recovered in a civil action.” In essence, the statute “imposes liability for the making of false statements with scienter” … . However, “Judiciary Law § 487 is not a codification of common-law fraud and therefore does not require a showing of justifiable reliance” … . Stated another way, “liability under the statute does not depend on whether the court or party to whom the statement is made is actually misled by the attorney’s intentional false statement” … ; i.e., the statute “focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not the deceit’s success” … .

… [P]laintiffs alleged in their amended complaint that, from the time he became the client’s attorney, Moore engaged in a pattern of conduct whereby he advocated for the validity of a fraudulent deed, and oversaw the revision of fraudulent surveys based upon that deed. Plaintiffs alleged that Moore was in possession of documents and correspondence establishing that the deed was the fraudulent product of the client and defendant Aaron I. Mullen, an attorney who had previously represented the client, and that Moore failed to disclose those items despite receiving a valid discovery demand for them. Plaintiffs also alleged that Moore instituted a CPLR article 78 proceeding based upon the allegedly fraudulent deed and that he attached the deed to the petition. Plaintiffs further alleged that Moore participated in the client’s fraud, and did so intentionally and with knowledge of the client’s fraud, to plaintiffs’ detriment of more than $100,000 in legal fees and expenses. Ostrander v Mullen, 2024 NY Slip Op 06461, Fourth Dept 12-20-24

Practice Point: A Judiciary Law 487 action against an attorney focuses on the attorney’s intent to deceive, not whether the deceit was successful.

 

,

ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF ALLEGED FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT, THE ESSENCE OF THE LAWSUIT IS THE ALLEGED BREACH OF THE CONTRACTS; THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE IT IS ALLEGED THE FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT NULLIFIED THE CONTRACTS; THEREFORE THE JURY-TRIAL WAIVER PROVISIONS REMAIN ENFORCEABLE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Kapnick, determined the “fraudulent inducement” claim in this breach of contract action was covered by the contractual waiver of a jury trial. The First Department distinguished this case, which is in essence a “breach of contract” action, from cases where fraudulent inducement is alleged to have nullified the entire agreement. The contracts here involved the manufacture of semiconductor chips by defendant GlobalFoundries for plaintiff IBM:

From 2013 to June 2015, plaintiff International Business Machines Corporation (IBM) and defendant GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc., a manufacturer of semiconductors, engaged in discussions concerning a collaborative venture whereby IBM would transfer its microelectronics business, including technology, engineers and employees, to GlobalFoundries, along with a sum of $1.5 billion, and GlobalFoundries would develop, manufacture and supply next generation 14nm and 10nm high performance semiconductor chips for IBM. * * *

… [W]here a claim of fraudulent inducement challenges the validity of the agreement, a provision waiving the right to a jury trial in litigation arising out of the agreement may not apply … . This Court has taken care to distinguish between actions where the primary claim is fraudulent inducement and the validity of the entire contract is clearly being challenged … , and actions that do not challenge the validity of the contract but rather seek to enforce the underlying contract by obtaining damages for fraudulent inducement … . The present case falls into the latter category. * * *

It is clear from IBM’s complaint that its primary claim is not fraudulent inducement but rather breach of the agreements. International Business Machs. Corp. v GlobalFoundries U.S. Inc., 2024 NY Slip Op 06425, First Dept 12-19-24

Practice Point: It is possible that fraudulent inducement can nullify an underlying contract rendering all of the contract provisions unenforceable. Here however, although fraudulent inducement was alleged, the essence of the suit is the alleged breach of the underlying contracts. Therefore, the jury-trial waiver provisions remain enforceable.

 

, , ,

THE PARTY SEEKING TO ENFORCE A VENUE CONTRACT PROVISION HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SIGNATURE IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF FORGERY; HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE SIGNATURE WAS AUTHENTIC AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE FORGERY ALLEGATION (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, reversing the Appellate Division, determined the defendant demonstrated the contract which included a venue provision was signed by the decedent and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable question of fact about whether the signature was forged. The court noted that contractual choice of venue provisions are generally enforceable and provided some insight into how a forgery question-of-fact can be raised:

Forum selection clauses may designate a jurisdiction, such as the federal or state court system, or the clause may designate a venue within the State, as was done here by specifying Nassau County as the proper venue … .* * *

… [T]he party moving for a change of venue under CPLR 501 is in effect seeking to enforce a contractual provision. For that reason, … the proponent of the motion bears the initial burden to establish the authenticity of the writing for purposes of a motion to enforce a contractual venue provision … . This may be done through any of the recognized methods of authentication, including, but not limited to, the testimony of a witness who was present at the time of the signing, an admission of authenticity, proof of handwriting, and, as particularly relevant here, through circumstantial evidence … . * * *

Although an expert opinion is not required to raise an issue of fact as to forgery , the movant must nevertheless offer “[s]omething more than a bald assertion,” and in this regard conclusory or self-serving affidavits are inadequate … . Plaintiff offered only an affidavit in which he claimed to be “familiar” with decedent’s handwriting. Based on a summary of certain perceived inconsistencies in the signatures and initials on the agreements, plaintiff asserted that “whoever the person or people who signed and initialed these pages may have been, it was not my mother.” Attached to the affirmation is an undated “exemplar” of what is purportedly decedent’s signature, but no effort is made to establish that the exemplar represents decedent’s signature at the relevant time. Furthermore, the exemplar is purportedly decedent’s handwritten signature, and … electronic signatures may naturally differ from handwritten one … . Knight v New York & Presbyt. Hosp, 2024 NY Slip Op 05870, CtApp 

Practice Point: Contractual provisions designating venue are enforceable.

Practice Point: To enforce a contractual venue provision, in the face of a forgery allegation, the moving party must demonstrate the signature is authentic.

Practice Point: Bald assertions of forgery unsupported by any evidence will not raise a triable question of fact on the forgery issue.

 

, , ,

DEFENDANTS RAISED QUESTIONS OF FACT SUPPORTING A “FRAUD IN THE INDUCEMENT” DEFENSE TO THE ACTION BASED UPON AN EXECUTED PROMISSORY NOTE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined defendants raised a valid “fraud in the inducement” defense to the action seeking payment on an executed promissory note. Defendants executed the note to purchase protein powder from plaintiffs. Plaintiffs described the powder as having 23 to 25 grams of protein per 33/5 grams of powder. After the purchase defendants had the powder tested which revealed the powder contained a significantly lower percentage of protein:

“When an action is based upon an instrument for the payment of money only . . . , the plaintiff may serve with the summons a notice of motion for summary judgment and the supporting papers in lieu of a complaint” (CPLR 3213). Therefore, “[t]o prevail on [their] motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint based on a promissory note, plaintiff[s] w[ere] required to present evidence that defendant[s] executed the note and defaulted thereon” … . Plaintiffs demonstrated their prima facie burden by supplying the note at issue, signed by [defendant], and evidence of defendant’s failure to pay; therefore, the burden shifted to defendants to establish the existence of a triable issue of fact as to a bona fide defense to liability … . …

Fraud in the inducement is a defense to the enforcement of a promissory note … , and, as such, defendants were required to “allege that (1) the plaintiff made a representation or a material omission of fact which was false and the plaintiff knew to be false, (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the defendant to rely upon it, (3) there was justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation or material omission, and (4) injury” … . * * *

Generally, “what constitutes reasonable reliance is always [a] nettlesome” inquiry best left to the trier of fact … . Furthermore, “[s]ummary judgment is a drastic remedy that should not be granted where there is any doubt as to the existence of triable issues of fact” … . Panessa v Lederfeind, 2024 NY Slip Op 05252, Third Dept 10-24-24

Practice Point: Fraud in the inducement is a valid defense to an action for summary judgment based upon an instrument for the payment of money only (CPLR 3213), here a promissory note.

 

, ,

HERE ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD WERE ESSENTIAL TO THE BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY CAUSE OF ACTION; THEREFORE THE SIX-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FRAUD APPLIED AND THE CAUSE OF ACTION WAS TIME-BARRED (SECOND DEPT). ​

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the six-year statute of limitations for fraud controlled the breach of a fiduciary duty cause of action (which was therefore time-barred):

… [T]he six-year statute of limitations governing actions based on fraud applies (see CPLR 213[8]). “‘[W]here an allegation of fraud is essential to a breach of fiduciary duty claim, courts have applied a six-year statute of limitations under CPLR 213(8)'” … . Here, the defendants alleged that Hollander was part owner of a limited liability company that competed directly with the defendants, that Hollander failed to disclose that alleged conflict, and that Hollander used confidential information obtained from the defendants to directly compete with them. The plaintiffs allegedly denied GFR and Friedman Group, LLC, the opportunity to purchase at least four specific properties and used trade secrets to compete with GFR and Friedman Group, LLC, on at least three specific properties. The allegations of fraud are thus essential to the breach of fiduciary duty counterclaim, and the six-year statute of limitations applies. South Shore Estates, Inc. v Guy Friedman Realty Corp., 2024 NY Slip Op 04156, Second Dept 8-7-24

Practice Point: Where allegations of fraud are essential to a breach of fiduciary duty cause of action, the six-year statute of limitations for fraud applies.

 

, ,

WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION, THE NONRECOURSE CLAUSE PRECLUDED THIS LAWSUIT AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS OF DEFENDANT CORPORATION; PLAINTIFF HAD WON AN ARBITRATION AWARD AGAINST DEFENDANT FOR OVER $200 MILLION AND BROUGHT THIS ACTION AFTER DEFENDANT FILED FOR BANKRUPTCY (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Higgitt, determined the nonrecourse clause in the contract between two sophisticated, commercial parties precluded plaintiff’s action. Plaintiff had won an arbitration award for over $200 million against defendant (Footprint) and this suit against Footprint’s principals was brought after Footprint filed for bankruptcy:

Plaintiff, a sophisticated commercial actor, knew that it was entering into a significant contractual undertaking with a special-purpose entity, and the contract provided for a specific dispute-resolution mechanism — arbitration — that carried with it a risk that the special-purpose entity would not be able to satisfy an ensuing award. Plaintiff could have bargained for protections to avoid or mitigate losses occasioned by the conduct of a judgment-proof special-purpose entity (e.g., conditions on Footprint’s ability to draw on the letter of credit, a payment guaranty from one or more of defendants, a narrow nonrecourse provision), but it chose to enter into the contract as written … . We cannot provide rough justice to plaintiff by dint of distorting the plain meaning of the contract to relieve plaintiff of the consequences of its contractual arrangement … . Similarly, we cannot, under the guise of contractual interpretation, disturb the clear, detailed allocation-of-risk-of-economic-loss scheme agreed upon by the parties … . Ultimately, plaintiff got the benefit of its bargain: arbitration on its cognizable claims against Footprint, which proceeding yielded a sizable award that was converted to a judgment. Iberdrola Energy Projects v Oaktree Capital Mgt. L.P., 2024 NY Slip Op 03798, First Dept 7-11-24

Practice Point: Sophisticated corporate commercial parties will be held to an unambiguous nonrecourse provision in their contract.​

 

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy