Summary
distinguishing non-actionable "opinions of value" from actionable "false statements of value"
Summary of this case from U.S. Bank, Nat'l Ass'n v. UBS Real Estate Sec. Inc.Opinion
831
April 17, 2003.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered May 20, 2002, which, insofar as appealed from, granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action for fraud and negligent misrepresentation, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Zaur Glonti, for plaintiff.
Bijan Amini, for plaintiffs-appellant.
Gerald E. Singleton, for defendants-respondents.
Before: MAZZARELLI, J.P., ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, MARLOW, GONZALEZ, JJ.
In this action by a foreign investor seeking damages relating to his investment in a foreign business, the motion court correctly found that the alleged misrepresentations did not support a fraud claim because they consisted of mere puffery, opinions of value or future expectations (see Longo v. Butler Equities II, L.P., 278 A.D.2d 97; Sheth v. New York Life Ins. Co., 273 A.D.2d 72, 74), rather than false statements of value (compare P.T. Bank Central Asia v. ABN Amro Bank, N.V., A.D.2d 754 N.Y.S.2d 245, 251). Plaintiff-appellant's attempt to set forth a new theory in opposition to summary judgment was unavailing, since the remark relied upon was taken out of context and merely stated unremarkably that shares of a closely held entity, especially one incorporated in a foreign country, are "worthless," in the sense of lacking any realistic market, unless they become publicly traded.
The negligent misrepresentation cause of action was not viable in the absence of a confidential relationship imposing upon defendants a duty to speak (see Kimmell v. Schaeffer, 89 N.Y.2d 257, 263-265; Ravenna v. Christie's, Inc., 289 A.D.2d 15). No such relationship arose from appellant's single meeting with the law firm defendants. We reject appellant's contention that these defendants are liable for conduct, statements or omissions by a codefendant as a result of their being co-venturers, since appellant failed to raise an issue of fact as to the existence of an agreement, express or implied, to share losses, and, thus, as to the existence of a joint venture (see Chanler v. Roberts, 200 A.D.2d 489, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 903).
We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.