Slavin v. Victor
| Decision Date | 27 December 1990 |
| Citation | 563 N.Y.S.2d 407,168 A.D.2d 399 |
| Parties | Clifford H. SLAVIN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Steven A. VICTOR, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before KUPFERMAN, J.P., and CARRO, ASCH and SMITH, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (C. Beauchamp Ciparick, J.), entered July 16, 1990, denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
We agree with the IAS court that defendant has alleged, with sufficient particularity, a pattern of misrepresentation that spells out fraud in the inducement. Promissory notes given in exchange for purchase of a business cannot be viewed in a vacuum where genuine issues of fact exist as to whether the transaction was induced by misrepresentation (Epstein v. Scally, 99 A.D.2d 713, 472 N.Y.S.2d 318), even where the obligation is termed "unconditional" (see Millerton Agway Cooperative v. Briarcliff Farms, 17 N.Y.2d 57, 268 N.Y.S.2d 18, 215 N.E.2d 341). In alleging the materiality and centrality of the alleged fraud to the underlying transaction, defendant has appropriately offered the affidavit of the president of the two companies, who discovered the financial misdeeds and can speak from first-hand knowledge as to the nature of the misrepresentations (Magi Communications v. Jac-Lu Associates, 65 A.D.2d 727, 729, 410 N.Y.S.2d 297).
Partial summary judgment is also inappropriate at this point because it is still unclear what the extent of the alleged corporate diversion was, and whether those misdeeds so eroded the companies financially as to affect their desirability for purchase in the underlying transaction.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Su Nam Bu v. Sunset Park Deli of N.Y. Corp.
...fraudulent inducement may properly be raised as a defense to payment of a promissary note. As the court stated in Slavin v. Victor (168 A.D.2d 399 [1990] ), “[p]romissary notes given in exchange for purchase of a business cannot be viewed in a vacuum where genuine issues of fact exist as to......
-
Silber v. Muschel
...the perpetration of an affirmative misrepresentation which, if true, would constitute fraud in the inducement (see, Slavin v. Victor, 168 A.D.2d 399, 563 N.Y.S.2d 407; Pan Atlantic Group v. Isacsen, supra ). Specifically, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff misrepresented the number of......
-
Citibank v. Ferrara
...president who was intimately involved in the transaction and was present when alleged misrepresentations were made); Slavin v. Victor. 168 A.D.2d 399 (1st Dep't 1990)(in alleging fraud, defendant appropriately offered the affidavit of the president of the two companies, who discovered the f......
-
NL Group v. Eccelston Properties, Ltd.
...of a common scheme or plan between plaintiff and the counterclaim defendants to deprive defendant of its properties (Slavin v. Victor, 168 A.D.2d 399, 563 N.Y.S.2d 407). ...