You are here: / Fraud
, , ,

Because the Landlord Engaged in Fraud, the Four-Year Rent-Overcharge Statute of Limitations Runs Back Four Years from When the Rent Overcharge Action Was Brought/Criteria for Collateral Estoppel Explained (Not Met Here)/Question of Fact Re: Piercing Corporate Veil

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Read, over a dissent, determined that the four-year statute of limitations in rent-overcharge actions, where the landlord engaged in fraud, does not begin to run when the first overcharge payment is made, but rather extends back four years from when the overcharge action is brought.  Here there was evidence the landlord used a fictitious tenant and rent to justify the rent charged the tenants.  The landlord argued the tenants’ action was time-barred because it was brought more than four years after the first overcharge payment was made. In addition to the statute-of-limitations ruling, the Court of Appeals held the collateral estoppel doctrine was not correctly applied by the courts below and there was a question of fact whether the corporate veil should be pierced due to the principal’s control over the corporate-landlord and the principal’s fraudulent acts:

Julie Conason (Conason) and Geoffrey Bryant (Bryant) (collectively, tenants) are the rent-stabilized tenants of an apartment in a residential building in Manhattan. Megan Holding LLC (Megan) is the building’s owner and tenants’ landlord. … Conason asserted an overcharge claim against Megan in April 2009, almost five and one-half years after she occupied the apartment under a vacancy lease. The principal issue on this appeal is whether CPLR 213-a’s four-year statute of limitations completely bars this claim. Because of the unrefuted proof of fraud in the record, we conclude that section 213-a merely limits tenants’ recovery to those overcharges occurring during the four-year period immediately preceding Conason’s rent challenge, and that the lawful rent on the base date must be determined by using the default formula devised by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR or the agency) … . * * *

CPLR 213-a fixes a four-year statute of limitations for claims of residential rent overcharge; specifically, this provision states that

“[a]n action on a residential rent overcharge shall be commenced within four years of the first overcharge alleged and no determination of an overcharge and no award or calculation of an award of the amount of any overcharge may be based upon an overcharge having occurred more than four years before the action is commenced. This section shall preclude examination of the rental history of the housing accommodation prior to the four-year period immediately preceding the commencement of the action” (emphasis added) (CPLR 213-a; see also Rent Stabilization Law [Administrative Code of City of NY] § 26-516 [a] [2]; Rent Stabilization Code [9 NYCRR 2520.6 [f]; 2526.1 [a] [2]). * * *

Collateral estoppel comes into play when four conditions are fulfilled:

“(1) the issues in both proceedings are identical, (2) the issue in the prior proceeding was actually litigated and decided, (3) there was a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the prior proceeding, and (4) the issue previously litigated was necessary to support a valid and final judgment on the merits” … . … . …

Civil Court’s findings of fraud are not entitled to preclusive effect because two of the four prerequisites for collateral estoppel are unmet: the issues in Civil Court (breach of the warranty of habitability) and Supreme Court (evidence of fraud sufficient to render the rent on the base date unreliable) are not identical (the first condition), and findings of fraud were not necessary to support the judgment entered on the April 8th order, which awarded tenants rent abatement on account of Megan’s breach of the warranty of habitability and directed Megan to remedy code violations (the fourth condition). Conason v Megan Holding LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01553, CtApp 2-24-15

 

Cause of Action for Fraudulent Concealment Must Allege a Basis for the Existence of a Duty to Disclose

In affirming the dismissal of a cause of action alleging fraudulent concealment (no basis for a duty to disclose was alleged), the Second Department explained the required elements:

To properly plead a cause of action for fraud, a plaintiff must allege all of the following requisite elements: (1) the defendant made a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and which the defendant knew to be false; (2) the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of inducing the plaintiff to rely upon it; (3) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the misrepresentation or material omission; and (4) injury … . To sustain a cause of action for fraudulent concealment, the plaintiff must further allege a fifth element, namely, that the defendant had a duty to disclose the material information … . Bannister v Agard, 2015 NY Slip Op 01408, 2nd Dept 2-18-15

 

, ,

Landlord Not Entitled to Reformation of a Lease—Landlord Had Failed to Use Due Diligence Before Signing and Did Not Notice a Deletion Made by Plaintiff—Plaintiff Was Not Obligated to Highlight the Deletion

The First Department determined defendant landlord, sophisticated in business matters, was not entitled to reformation of a lease. The landlord had signed the agreement after the provision capping what the landlord would pay for renovations made by the tenant was deleted.  The renovations ended up costing nearly a year’s rental income. Plaintiff’s failure to “highlight” the deletion did not constitute fraud:

Defendant landlord failed to demonstrate that it was entitled to reformation of the lease amendment providing that it would reimburse plaintiff tenant the total cost of its alterations, rather than a capped amount as had been set forth in drafts circulated during negotiations over the renewal lease. Defendant’s failure to read the final document before signing it precludes its claim of unilateral mistake induced by fraud based on plaintiff’s failure to highlight its deletion of the portion of the provision capping the reimbursement amount, before presenting it to defendant’s in-house counsel for defendant’s signature … . Contrary to this sophisticated defendant’s contention, the justifiability of its reliance does not present an issue of fact barring summary disposition … . Even assuming an obligation to conduct pre-contractual negotiations in good faith in appropriate circumstances, such as would enable a party to rely on the adverse party negotiating in good faith and to assume that there are no new changes to earlier drafts unless the change is highlighted, defendant’s claim for reformation based on the allegation of fraud cannot stand. Defendant simply may not justifiably rely on the absence of such highlighting for its failure to fully review the final version of this four-page document before signing it, especially since the change is on the first page. US Legal Support Inc v Eldad Prime LLC, 2015 NY Slip Op 01386, 1st Dept 2-17-15

 

, , ,

Battery Cause of Action Based Upon the Complete Absence of Consent or Fraudulently Induced Consent Is Not Duplicative of a Dental Malpractice Allegation—Criteria Explained/Questions of Fact Raised Re: the Deceptive Business Practices Cause of Action—Some of the Criteria Explained

The Fourth Department determined the cause of action for battery was not duplicative of the cause of action for dental malpractice because it was based upon the allegations consent to the procedure was completely absent or was fraudulently induced.  In addition, there were questions of fact re: the deceptive business practices cause of action:

…[T]he cause of action asserting the complete absence of consent and/or fraudulently induced consent for treatment is properly treated as one for battery rather than for dental malpractice, and it is not duplicative of the dental malpractice cause of action … . “It is well settled that a medical professional may be deemed to have committed battery, rather than malpractice, if he or she carries out a procedure or treatment to which the patient has provided no consent at all’ ” … . The court properly denied that part of the … defendants’ motion with respect to the battery cause of action, inasmuch as they failed to meet their initial burden of establishing that they “did not intentionally engage in offensive bodily contact without plaintiff’s consent”… . …

A cause of action for deceptive business practices under section 349 “requires proof that the defendant engaged in consumer-oriented conduct that was materially deceptive or misleading, causing injury” … . Even assuming, arguendo, that the … defendants met their initial burden by establishing that the underlying transaction was private in nature and the allegedly deceptive acts were not aimed at the public at large …, we conclude that plaintiff’s submissions raised issues of fact concerning whether the … defendants engaged in a scheme to place profits before patient care, which allegedly included fraudulent practices that impacted consumers at large beyond a particular dentist’s treatment of an individual patient … . Matter of Smiles, 2015 NY Slip Op 01362, 4th Dept 2-13-15

 

, ,

Only Out-of-Pocket Damages Allowed in Fraud Action (Re: a Real Estate Purchase Agreement)

The Third Department affirmed a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs stemming in large part from the fraudulent representation (re: a property information sheet) that a septic system, which failed, was “new.” The court noted the out-of-pocket rule for damages based upon fraud (lost profits/rents, etc. not recoverable):

[D]efendants’ realtor prepared a property information sheet — to be given to prospective buyers — bearing the notation, “Septic system totally new — le[a]ch field totally replaced — new 5000 gallon holding tank,” as well as the general qualification that “all information [was] deemed reliable but not guaranteed.” …[P]laintiffs … entered into a purchase and sale contract for the property. The contract, which reflected a purchase price of $545,000 and indicated that the buildings on the premises would be sold “as is,” also contained a waivable septic system contingency. Plaintiffs ultimately did not avail themselves of this contingency–a decision purportedly based, in part, upon plaintiffs’ belief that the property contained a new septic system. * * *

…[T]he case law makes clear that where, as here, a cause of action for fraud has been asserted, “[t]he true measure of damage is indemnity for the actual pecuniary loss sustained as the direct result of the wrong or what is known as the ‘out-of-pocket’ rule. . . . Damages are to be calculated to compensate plaintiffs for what they lost because of the fraud, not to compensate them for what they might have gained. Under the out-of-pocket rule, there can be no recovery of profits which would have been realized in the absence of fraud” … . Revell v Guido, 2015 NY Slip Op 00411, 3rd Dept 1-15-15

 

, ,

Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Sellers’ Representations on the Condition Disclosure Statement Claiming No Water-Related Problems on the Property Violated Real Property Law 462, 465, Constituted Fraud, and Constituted Breach of Contract

The Fourth Department determined the sellers’ representations on the condition disclosure statement created questions of fact about whether sellers violated Real Property Law 462 and 465, whether the sellers committed fraud, and whether the sellers breached the sales contract.  The sellers indicated on the condition disclosure statement that they had experienced no problems with standing water and water seeping into the basement.  There was evidence the sellers were aware of the existence of such water problems when they indicated on the form there had been none:

Real Property Law § 462 (1) requires sellers of residential real property to “complete and sign a property condition disclosure statement” and to provide such statement to a prospective buyer “prior to the signing by the buyer of a binding contract of sale.” Real Property Law § 462 sets forth the disclosure form, which instructs the seller to complete the form based upon his or her “ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE,” and contains the seller’s certification that “THE INFORMATION IN THIS PROPERTY CONDITION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT IS TRUE AND COMPLETE TO THE SELLER’S ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE AS OF THE DATE SIGNED BY THE SELLER.” Where a seller provides a property condition disclosure statement and “willful[ly] fail[s] to perform the requirements” set forth in article 14 of the Real Property Law “[such] seller shall be liable for the actual damages suffered by the buyer in addition to any other existing equitable or statutory remedy” (Real Property Law § 465 [2]). * * *

… [W]e conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact with respect to whether defendants knowingly misrepresented a material fact, i.e., the property’s history of flooding and standing water, on the property condition disclosure statement … . We likewise conclude that plaintiff raised an issue of fact with respect to whether he justifiably relied on defendants’ alleged misrepresentations … . * * *

Although the provisions of a contract for the sale of real property are generally merged in the deed and therefore extinguished upon the closing of title …, that rule does not apply ” where the parties have expressed their intention that [a] provision shall survive delivery of the deed’ ” … . Here, the contract provides that “[a]ny claim arising from failure to comply with Paragraph[] 5 [of the contract],” which encompasses defendants’ representations in the property condition disclosure statement, “shall survive for 2 years after the Closing or cancellation of this Contract” … . In any event, we note that “the merger doctrine [is] inapplicable where, as here, there exists a cause of action based upon fraud” … . Sicignano v Dixey, 2015 NY Slip Op 00054, 4th Dept 1-2-15

 

, ,

Heightened Pleading Requirements for Fraud Not Met

The First Department determined that plaintiff’s fraud cause of action was properly dismissed for failure to meet the heightened pleading requirements:

Plaintiff has not satisfied the heightened pleading standard for a fraud claim under CPLR § 3016(b) because it failed to identify any of the allegedly, false representations that [defendant] made with the then present intent to induce plaintiff’s investment in the project. Moreover, the fraudulent inducement claim duplicates the breach of contract claim because plaintiff has not alleged any representation that is collateral to the contract … . “A fraud-based claim is duplicative of breach of a contract claim when the only fraud alleged is that the defendant was not sincere when it promised to perform under the contract.” MMCT LLC v JTR Coll Point LLC, 2014 NY Slip Op 08103, 1st Dept 11-20-14

 

, , ,

Complaint Did Not State Causes of Action for Replevin or Conversion Because the Specific Funds Involved Were Not Sufficiently Identified/Fraud Cause of Action Stated—Inference of Fraud Sufficiently Raised from Circumstances Alleged

The Fourth Department determined the complaint did not state causes of action for replevin and conversion, but did state a cause of action for fraud.  The motions to dismiss the replevin and conversion causes of action pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) should therefore have been granted.  The basis of the complaint was the allegation that defendants embezzled as much as $4 million from an incapacitated person (Aida Corey):

Addressing first the replevin cause of action, we note that replevin is a remedy employed to recover a specific, identifiable item of personal property …, and “[o]rdinary currency, as a rule, is not subject to replevin” … . Unless the currency can be specifically identified, i.e., it consists of specific, identifiable bills or coins, replevin does not lie … . Here, the amended complaint alleges that the individual defendants “have used some or all of Aida Corey’s $4 million in cas[h] to purchase real and personal property and other tangible assets” and that they “have taken approximately $4 million of Aida Corey’s cash and/or personal property.” The sole focus of the parties, both in Supreme Court and on appeal, however, has been on the money allegedly taken by the … defendants, and we therefore deem abandoned any allegations by plaintiffs concerning personal property … . We thus conclude that the amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for replevin, because there is no “specifically identified” money that plaintiffs seek to recover … .

With respect to the plaintiff guardians’ cause of action for conversion, the amended complaint likewise alleges that the individual defendants “have taken approximately $4 million of Aida Corey’s cash and/or personal property,” but as with the replevin cause of action we conclude that plaintiffs have abandoned any allegations concerning personal property … . Money may be the subject of a cause of action for conversion only if “it can be identified and segregated as a chattel can be” …, i.e., “where there is a specific, identifiable fund” … . Contrary to the contentions of plaintiff guardians, the sums allegedly converted here do not constitute the type of specific, identifiable fund that would support a conversion cause of action … .

…[T]he court properly refused to dismiss the fraud cause of action against them. A fraud cause of action must allege that the defendant: (1) made a representation to a material fact; (2) the representation was false; (3) the defendant intended to deceive the plaintiff; (4) the plaintiff believed and justifiably relied on the statement and in accordance with the statement engaged in a certain course of conduct; and (5) as a result of the reliance, the plaintiff sustained damages … . The allegations in the complaint must set forth the “basic facts constituting the fraud” …, to “inform a defendant of the complained-of incidents” … . The Court of Appeals has “cautioned that [CPLR] 3016 (b) should not be so strictly interpreted as to prevent an otherwise valid cause of action in situations where it may be impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting the fraud” (Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc., 10 NY3d 486, 491 [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, much of the detail surrounding the alleged fraud is ” peculiarly within the knowledge’ ” of the … defendants …, and we agree with plaintiffs that an inference of fraud arises from the circumstances alleged in the amended complaint … . Heckl v Walsh, 2014 NY Slip Op 07787, 4th Dept 11-14-14

 

,

The Proper Vehicle to Address Fraud Which Is Alleged to Have Tainted a Completed Proceeding Is a Motion to Vacate the Judgment, Not the Institution of a New Plenary Action

The Second Department noted that the remedy for addressing fraud in a completed action is a motion to vacate the judgment in that action, not a new plenary proceeding:

“Generally, a party who has lost a case as a result of alleged fraud or false testimony cannot collaterally attack the judgment in a separate action for damages against the party who adduced the false evidence” … . The “plaintiff’s remedy lies exclusively in that lawsuit itself, i.e., by moving pursuant to CPLR 5015 to vacate the . . . judgment due to its fraudulent procurement, not a second plenary action collaterally attacking the judgment in the original action” … . Stewart v Citimortgage Inc, 2014 NY Slip Op 07648, 2nd Dept 11-12-14

 

, , , , ,

Purchase of Property Encumbered by an Unsatisfied Mortgage Gave Rise to Negligence, Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Civil Conspiracy Causes of Action Against Title Insurance Company

Third-party plaintiff, Drummond, purchased property that was encumbered by an unsatisfied mortgage held by plaintiff bank. Drummond sued the title company, third-party defendant New York Land, as well as the company from which she procured her mortgage, Residential, and the bank to which the mortgage was transferred, Wells Fargo.  The third-party defendants brought CPLR 3211 motions to dismiss. The Second Department determined the causes of action against New York Land for negligence and negligent misrepresentation properly survived a motion to dismiss because the relationship between Drummond and New York Title was “so close as to approach privity,” but no such relationship was demonstrated with Residential and Wells Fargo.  The Second Department further determined the fraud and civil conspiracy causes of action against New York Land should not have been dismissed, explaining the pleading requirements. In addition, the Second Department determined that the suit was not “consumer-related” and therefore the General Business Law 349 cause of action was properly dismissed:

Although there was no contract between Drummond and New York Land, affording the pleadings a liberal construction and accepting all facts alleged as true …, the third-party complaint supports Drummond’s contention that the relationship between these two parties was so close as to approach privity .. . Indeed, the pleading alleges that New York Land was aware that the abstract and title report that it prepared were to be used for the specific purpose of facilitating a sale or mortgage of the property, that New York Land knew that Drummond was a member of a definable class who would rely on the certification in furtherance of that purpose, and that there was conduct between New York Land and Drummond evincing New York Land’s understanding of Drummond’s reliance … . Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied those branches of New York Land’s motion which were to dismiss, for failure to state a cause of action, the third-party causes of action alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation insofar as asserted against it. * * *

“The elements of a cause of action sounding in fraud are a material misrepresentation of an existing fact, made with knowledge of the falsity, an intent to induce reliance thereon, justifiable reliance upon the misrepresentation, and damages” … . “All of the elements of a fraud claim must be supported by factual allegations containing the details constituting the wrong’ in order to satisfy the pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b)” … . In certain circumstances, however, it may be “almost impossible to state in detail the circumstances constituting a fraud where those circumstances are peculiarly within the knowledge of [an adverse] party” … . “Under such circumstances, the heightened pleading requirements of CPLR 3016(b) may be met when the material facts alleged in the complaint, in light of the surrounding circumstances, are sufficient to permit a reasonable inference of the alleged conduct’ including the adverse party’s knowledge of, or participation in, the fraudulent scheme” … . Here, accepting all facts alleged as true … , the third-party complaint contains sufficient allegations of fact from which it can be inferred that New York Land was aware of the alleged fraudulent scheme and intended to aid in the commission thereof … . * * *

“Although New York does not recognize civil conspiracy to commit a tort . . . as an independent cause of action, a plaintiff may plead the existence of a conspiracy in order to connect the actions of the individual defendants with an actionable, underlying tort and establish that those actions were part of a common scheme” … . Again, affording the third-party complaint a liberal construction, Drummond alleged sufficient facts from which it may be inferred that New York Land knowingly participated, with certain other third-party defendants, in the alleged fraudulent scheme … . * * *

General Business Law § 349 is a broad consumer protection statute, which declares “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce” to be unlawful (General Business Law § 349[a]…). A party claiming the benefit of General Business Law § 349 must, as a threshold matter, ” charge conduct that is consumer oriented'” … . “The single shot transaction, which is tailored to meet the purchaser’s wishes and requirements, does not, without more, constitute consumer-oriented conduct for the purposes of this statute” … . Rather, the defendant’s acts or practices “must have a broad impact on consumers at large” … . Here, Drummond’s General Business Law § 349 cause of action is predicated upon allegations that the third-party defendants fraudulently induced her to purchase the subject property and finance it with a mortgage loan from [Residential]. As the Supreme Court properly concluded, these factual allegations do not amount to conduct that has an impact on the public at large and, as such, do not state a cause of action for violation of General Business Law § 349 … . JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Hall, 2014 NY Slip Op 07475, 2nd Dept 11-5-14

 

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