Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Your attorney just emailed you a copy of a court decision in your fraud case against a landlord who leased you space that you subsequently learned could not legally be occupied for your intended use. If the court decision called you "sophisticated," it was probably not intended as a compliment, but instead signaled the death knell of your fraud claim.
What's in a name? "Sophisticated" parties who cry "fraud" when they believe they did not receive the full benefit of their bargain are often turned away by the courts because they could and should have conducted due diligence before signing or closing on their contract.
New York's fraudulent misrepresentation rule appears relatively simple on its face. It requires the complaining party to establish five elements, sometimes colloquially referred to as the "five fingers of fraud":
See, Channel Master Corp. v. Aluminium Limited Sales, Inc., 4 NY2d 403, 407 (1958).
New York law requires that a fraud claim state "the circumstances constituting the wrong … in detail." CPLR 3016(b). See, Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 NY3d 553 (2009) (there is no requirement of "unassailable proof" at the pleading stage, but the complaint must "allege the basic facts to establish the elements of the cause of action"). If tenant's attorney can write, and if the landlord really misled the tenant about whether the space is legal for tenant's use, drafting the complaint will not be the problem.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.