Raytheon Co. v. AES Red Oak, LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raytheon Co. v. AES Red Oak, LLC

37 A.D.3d 364, 831 N.Y.S.2d 54

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 364 (Raytheon Co. v. AES Red Oak, LLC) 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

Raytheon Co. v. AES Red Oak, LLC, 37 A.D.3d 364, 831 N.Y.S.2d 54 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered January 9, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth counterclaims in the amended answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action for breach of a construction contract in which defendant counterclaims for breach of a settlement agreement and its fraudulent inducement, the fraud counterclaims were properly dismissed on the ground that the required elements of [365]*365a false statement and justifiable reliance (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]) were both clearly contradicted by documentary evidence. The very mechanical problem whose resolution defendant claims was misrepresented was specifically exempted from the releases and was included on a punch list. Plaintiffs July 24, 2002 letter containing the alleged written misrepresentation stated there would be further testing, indicating that the asserted clearance by the supplier was only tentative. Moreover, the allegation of an oral misrepresentation did not particularize when or by whom it had been made (CPLR 3016 [b]). In addition, we agree that the fraud claims were not collateral or extraneous to the alleged breach of contract (see Coppola v Applied Elec. Corp., 288 AD2d 41 [2001]).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions, including that summary judgment was premature, and find them unavailing. Concur—Sullivan, J.P, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered January 9, 2006, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff partial summary judgment dismissing the fourth and fifth counterclaims in the amended answer, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this action for breach of a construction contract in which defendant counterclaims for breach of a settlement agreement and its fraudulent inducement, the fraud counterclaims were properly dismissed on the ground that the required elements of [365]*365a false statement and justifiable reliance (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]) were both clearly contradicted by documentary evidence. The very mechanical problem whose resolution defendant claims was misrepresented was specifically exempted from the releases and was included on a punch list. Plaintiffs July 24, 2002 letter containing the alleged written misrepresentation stated there would be further testing, indicating that the asserted clearance by the supplier was only tentative. Moreover, the allegation of an oral misrepresentation did not particularize when or by whom it had been made (CPLR 3016 [b]). In addition, we agree that the fraud claims were not collateral or extraneous to the alleged breach of contract (see Coppola v Applied Elec. Corp., 288 AD2d 41 [2001]).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions, including that summary judgment was premature, and find them unavailing. Concur—Sullivan, J.P, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 364, 831 N.Y.S.2d 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raytheon-co-v-aes-red-oak-llc-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack