WT Holdings Inc. v. Argonaut Group, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

WT Holdings Inc. v. Argonaut Group, Inc.

127 A.D.3d 544, 5 N.Y.S.3d 731

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

DecidedApril 16, 2015

Docket14832N 600925/09

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 127 A.D.3d 544 (WT Holdings Inc. v. Argonaut Group, 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

WT Holdings Inc. v. Argonaut Group, Inc., 127 A.D.3d 544, 5 N.Y.S.3d 731 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered February 18, 2014, which denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We do not find that defendant would be prejudiced by an amendment to the complaint at this juncture (see Cherebin v Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 43 AD3d 364 [1st Dept 2007]). However, any amendment would be “palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit” (Nineteen Eighty-Nine, LLC v Icahn Enters. L.P., 99 AD3d 546, 548 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted], Iv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013]). The stock purchase agreement contains not only a general merger clause pursuant to which the stock purchase agreement “supersedes” all prior oral statements, but also a “No Additional Representation” clause that disclaims liability and responsibility for any extra-contractual representation, rendering the fraud claim not viable (see Natoli v NYC Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 103 AD3d 611, 613 [2d Dept 2013]). We reject plaintiffs contention that the “No Additional Representation” provision is not sufficiently specific to bar the proposed fraudulent inducement claim.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered February 18, 2014, which denied plaintiffs motion for leave to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

We do not find that defendant would be prejudiced by an amendment to the complaint at this juncture (see Cherebin v Empress Ambulance Serv., Inc., 43 AD3d 364 [1st Dept 2007]). However, any amendment would be “palpably insufficient or clearly devoid of merit” (Nineteen Eighty-Nine, LLC v Icahn Enters. L.P., 99 AD3d 546, 548 [1st Dept 2012] [internal quotation marks omitted], Iv denied 20 NY3d 863 [2013]). The stock purchase agreement contains not only a general merger clause pursuant to which the stock purchase agreement “supersedes” all prior oral statements, but also a “No Additional Representation” clause that disclaims liability and responsibility for any extra-contractual representation, rendering the fraud claim not viable (see Natoli v NYC Partnership Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc., 103 AD3d 611, 613 [2d Dept 2013]). We reject plaintiffs contention that the “No Additional Representation” provision is not sufficiently specific to bar the proposed fraudulent inducement claim.

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Manzanet-Daniels, Clark and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 544, 5 N.Y.S.3d 731, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wt-holdings-inc-v-argonaut-group-inc-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack