Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., Inc.

126 A.D.3d 483, 5 N.Y.S.3d 401

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 12, 2015

Docket14476 250742/11

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 483 (Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., Inc.) 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

Bishop v. Henry Modell & Co., Inc., 126 A.D.3d 483, 5 N.Y.S.3d 401 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered July 23, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants-respondents (Modell’s) to dismiss the claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that after purchasing a pair of sneakers, plaintiff was asked to show the receipt before exiting Modell’s. Store security advised him that it was store policy to check customers’ receipts and he would not be permitted to leave without complying. Plaintiff refused and contacted the police. The police arrived and instructed plaintiff to produce the receipt and when he did, he was permitted to leave the store.

Plaintiff commenced this action and asserted causes of action for, inter alia, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. He alleged that Modell’s knowingly made a materially false statement that it was store policy for customers to show their receipts before departing the store. Plaintiff stated that Modell’s personnel made the statement to induce him to rely upon it and surrender his rights not to present the receipt.

*484 Under the circumstances presented, plaintiff does not have a viable claim for fraud because he refused to show his receipt to store employees, offering it only to the police when they arrived and directed him to produce it. Thus, a necessary element of a claim of fraud, namely, justifiable reliance upon a false statement, has been negated (see generally Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). The negligent misrepresentation claim fails because plaintiff did not plead any special duty owed by Modell’s to him, a necessary element of a claim for negligent misrepresentation (see J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky, 8 NY3d 144, 148 [2007]).

Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered July 23, 2012, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, granted the motion of defendants-respondents (Modell’s) to dismiss the claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation as against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record shows that after purchasing a pair of sneakers, plaintiff was asked to show the receipt before exiting Modell’s. Store security advised him that it was store policy to check customers’ receipts and he would not be permitted to leave without complying. Plaintiff refused and contacted the police. The police arrived and instructed plaintiff to produce the receipt and when he did, he was permitted to leave the store.

Plaintiff commenced this action and asserted causes of action for, inter alia, fraud and negligent misrepresentation. He alleged that Modell’s knowingly made a materially false statement that it was store policy for customers to show their receipts before departing the store. Plaintiff stated that Modell’s personnel made the statement to induce him to rely upon it and surrender his rights not to present the receipt.

*484 Under the circumstances presented, plaintiff does not have a viable claim for fraud because he refused to show his receipt to store employees, offering it only to the police when they arrived and directed him to produce it. Thus, a necessary element of a claim of fraud, namely, justifiable reliance upon a false statement, has been negated (see generally Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). The negligent misrepresentation claim fails because plaintiff did not plead any special duty owed by Modell’s to him, a necessary element of a claim for negligent misrepresentation (see J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky, 8 NY3d 144, 148 [2007]).

Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Richter, Manzanet-Daniels and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 483, 5 N.Y.S.3d 401, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bishop-v-henry-modell-co-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack