Opinion
June 29, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Sklar, J.).
Contrary to defendants' claim on appeal, the fraud cause of action is pleaded with sufficient particularity to satisfy CPLR 3016 (b). The complaint sets forth the interlocking relationship of the various defendants, and when that relationship and the other allegations in the complaint are read in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, plaintiffs have adequately alleged that the defendants-appellants authorized the various misrepresentations. Though it is well settled that a cause of action for fraud may not be maintained when the only fraud charged relates to a breach of contract (Gordon v. De Laurentiis Corp., 141 A.D.2d 435, 436), the complaint specifically alleges that the defendants materially misrepresented a specific product, the L-frame problem. We also sustain the negligent misrepresentation cause of action. A cause of action for negligent misrepresentation may be founded on a contract (White v. Guarente, 43 N.Y.2d 356, 362-363), and the complaint sets forth a basis for finding that "signatory" defendants should have taken steps to confirm the veracity of the alleged misrepresentations. The purchase agreement and guaranties imply a closer degree of trust and reliance than the ordinary buyer-seller relationship (cf., Dorsey Prods. Corp. v. United States Rubber Co., 21 A.D.2d 866, 867, affd 16 N.Y.2d 925).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.