Karfunkel v. Sassower

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karfunkel v. Sassower

105 A.D.3d 459, 963 N.Y.S.2d 85

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

DecidedApril 4, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 459 (Karfunkel v. Sassower) 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

Karfunkel v. Sassower, 105 A.D.3d 459, 963 N.Y.S.2d 85 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

[460]*460Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered September 27, 2012, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 13, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action seeking damages for investment fraud, plaintiff was on notice that the transaction orally agreed to would not be structured as discussed based on emails and a draft agreement provided to him. Despite being on notice, plaintiff failed to inquire about the specifics of the transaction or to conduct due diligence. This failure precludes his claim of justifiable reliance on defendant’s alleged oral representations as a matter of law (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 NY3d 269, 279 [2011]; HSH Nordbank AG v UBS AG, 95 AD3d 185, 194-195 [1st Dept 2012]). In view of the foregoing, we need not address the contentions regarding proof of scienter or defendant’s cross appeal.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.

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

[460]*460Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered September 27, 2012, dismissing the complaint, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 13, 2012, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action seeking damages for investment fraud, plaintiff was on notice that the transaction orally agreed to would not be structured as discussed based on emails and a draft agreement provided to him. Despite being on notice, plaintiff failed to inquire about the specifics of the transaction or to conduct due diligence. This failure precludes his claim of justifiable reliance on defendant’s alleged oral representations as a matter of law (see Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 NY3d 269, 279 [2011]; HSH Nordbank AG v UBS AG, 95 AD3d 185, 194-195 [1st Dept 2012]). In view of the foregoing, we need not address the contentions regarding proof of scienter or defendant’s cross appeal.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Abdus-Salaam and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 459, 963 N.Y.S.2d 85, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karfunkel-v-sassower-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack