OP Solutions, Inc. v. Crowell & Moring, LLP

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

OP Solutions, Inc. v. Crowell & Moring, LLP

72 A.D.3d 622, 900 N.Y.S.2d 48

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

DecidedApril 29, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 72 A.D.3d 622 (OP Solutions, Inc. v. Crowell & Moring, LLP) 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

OP Solutions, Inc. v. Crowell & Moring, LLP, 72 A.D.3d 622, 900 N.Y.S.2d 48 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 27, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, in an action alleging breach of a licensing agreement, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that “a simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389 [1987]; see also New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 316 [1995]). Here, in addition to the fraud cause of action not being pleaded with sufficient detail (CFLR 3016 [b]), plaintiffs causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation are not separate and apart from its claim for breach of contract. The claims are predicated upon precisely the same purported wrongful conduct as is the claim for breach of contract inasmuch as they all involve defendant’s disclosure of plaintiffs purported proprietary and confidential information to a consultant (see Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Levine, 37 AD3d 250 [2007]). The claim for negligent misrepresentation is also defective in the absence of a special relationship of confidence and trust between the parties (cf. Fresh Direct v Blue Martini Software, 7 AD3d 487, 489 [2004]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 27, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from, in an action alleging breach of a licensing agreement, granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action alleging fraud and negligent misrepresentation, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that “a simple breach of contract is not to be considered a tort unless a legal duty independent of the contract itself has been violated” (Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 NY2d 382, 389 [1987]; see also New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 316 [1995]). Here, in addition to the fraud cause of action not being pleaded with sufficient detail (CFLR 3016 [b]), plaintiffs causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation are not separate and apart from its claim for breach of contract. The claims are predicated upon precisely the same purported wrongful conduct as is the claim for breach of contract inasmuch as they all involve defendant’s disclosure of plaintiffs purported proprietary and confidential information to a consultant (see Greenman-Pedersen, Inc. v Levine, 37 AD3d 250 [2007]). The claim for negligent misrepresentation is also defective in the absence of a special relationship of confidence and trust between the parties (cf. Fresh Direct v Blue Martini Software, 7 AD3d 487, 489 [2004]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., McGuire, Acosta, Freedman and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.3d 622, 900 N.Y.S.2d 48, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/op-solutions-inc-v-crowell-moring-llp-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack