Basis Pac-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) v. TCW Asset Mgt. Co.

124 A.D.3d 538, 2 N.Y.S.3d 105
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 26, 2015
Docket654033/12 14053 14052
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 124 A.D.3d 538 (Basis Pac-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) v. TCW Asset Mgt. Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Basis Pac-Rim Opportunity Fund (Master) v. TCW Asset Mgt. Co., 124 A.D.3d 538, 2 N.Y.S.3d 105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

*539 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the cause of action for negligent misrepresentation, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Order, same court and Justice, entered on or about December 3, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court properly dismissed the negligent misrepresentation cause of action since plaintiffs failed to establish the existence of a special relationship of trust or confidence between the parties required to support such a cause of action (see Zohar CDO 2003-1 Ltd. v Xinhua Sports & Entertainment Ltd., 111 AD3d 578, 579 [1st Dept 2013]; MBIA Ins. Corp. v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 87 AD3d 287, 297 [1st Dept 2011]). Contrary to plaintiffs’ assertions, the involvement of a collateral manager in an arm’s length transaction does not establish a special relationship as a matter of law (see Zohar CDO 2003-1 Ltd., 111 AD3d at 579). Here, the sophisticated parties entered into an arm’s length transaction which precludes a finding of a special relationship.

In addition, the motion court properly denied plaintiffs’ motion to renew since it was not “based upon new facts not offered on the prior motion” and did not “demonstrate that there has been a change in the law that would change the prior determination” (CPLR 2221 [e] [2]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Renwick, DeGrasse, Richter and Clark, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Suber v. Churchill Owners Corp.
2024 NY Slip Op 03020 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)
Iken v. Bohemian Brethren Presbyt. Church
2024 NY Slip Op 31630(U) (New York Supreme Court, New York County, 2024)
Tall Tower Capital, LLC v. Stonepeak Partners LP
2019 NY Slip Op 5491 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
FCRC Modular, LLC v. Skanska Modular LLC
2018 NY Slip Op 1399 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Norddeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v. Tilton
2017 NY Slip Op 1482 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
124 A.D.3d 538, 2 N.Y.S.3d 105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/basis-pac-rim-opportunity-fund-master-v-tcw-asset-mgt-co-nyappdiv-2015.