Summary
In KNK Enters. v. Harriman Enters., Inc., 33 A.D.3d 872, 824 N.Y.S.2d 307 (2d Dept 2006), the Appellate Division held, as Bear Stearns points out, that the plaintiff there could not show reasonable or justifiable reliance because it, represented by counsel, had decided to proceed with the transaction despite knowledge that it had not received full information concerning the transaction.
Summary of this case from MBIA Ins. Corp. v. JPMorgan Sec. LLCOpinion
No. 2005-03342.
October 24, 2006.
In an action to recover damages for fraud, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Peck, J.), entered December 3, 2004, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against them in the principal sum of $77,500.
Before: Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the complaint is dismissed.
To prevail on a claim of fraud, a plaintiff must show that it actually relied on the purported fraudulent statements and that its reliance was reasonable or justifiable ( see Harris v Camilleri, 77 AD2d 861, 863). A party cannot claim reliance on a misrepresentation when he or she could have discovered the truth with due diligence ( see East 15360 Corp. v Provident Loan Socy. Of N.Y, 177 AD2d 280). Here, the plaintiff, who was represented by counsel, decided to proceed with the transaction, despite knowing that it had not received full information concerning the transaction; thus its reliance cannot be considered reasonable or justifiable.
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions.