25 Cited authorities

  1. Lama Holding Co. v. Smith Barney Inc.

    88 N.Y.2d 413 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 1,836 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that damages that are "undeterminable" or speculative cannot serve as the basis of a fraud claim
  2. Cron v. Hargro Fabrics, Inc.

    91 N.Y.2d 362 (N.Y. 1998)   Cited 674 times
    Finding that the statute of frauds does not apply when compensation could be earned and fixed within a year.
  3. Kronos, Inc. v. AVX Corp.

    81 N.Y.2d 90 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 631 times
    Holding that plaintiffs' cause of action sounding in tort accrued in 1988 when plaintiff suffered damages, even though breach occurred in 1984
  4. Swersky v. Dreyer Traub

    219 A.D.2d 321 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)   Cited 285 times
    Holding that "the firm may be held liable to the same extent as the individual defendant"
  5. WIT Holding Corp. v. Klein

    282 A.D.2d 527 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 232 times
    Finding that “[a]s there [was] no cause of action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty, the plaintiff's cause of action ... for aiding and abetting a breach of a fiduciary duty should also have been dismissed” by the lower court
  6. Stewart v. Jackson Nash

    976 F.2d 86 (2d Cir. 1992)   Cited 219 times
    Holding that plaintiff, an at-will employee, stated a claim for fraudulent inducement where here alleged injuries "commenced well before her termination and were, in several important respects, unrelated to it"
  7. Stuart Silver Associates, Inc. v. Baco Development Corp.

    245 A.D.2d 96 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 153 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "where `a party has the means to discover the true nature of the transaction by the exercise of ordinary intelligence and fails to make use of those means, he cannot claim justifiable reliance on defendant's misrepresentations.'"
  8. Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co.

    252 A.D.2d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 130 times
    Finding the proposed class action "unmanageable because of the individual issues of reliance, causation and damages with respect to each of the [class members]"
  9. Rather v. CBS Corp.

    68 A.D.3d 49 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 80 times
    Holding that to recover under Lama, plaintiff had to “plead that he had something of value, was defrauded by [the defendant] into relinquishing it for something of lesser value, and that the difference between the two constituted [the plaintiff's] pecuniary loss”
  10. Oxbow Calcining USA Inc. v. American Industrial Partners

    96 A.D.3d 646 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 70 times
    Reversing a dismissal based on the statute of limitations because there was a factual dispute about the plaintiff's principal place of business at the time of the alleged breach