Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
ALPHA GMBH & CO. SCHIFFSBESITZ KG, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. BIP INDUSTRIES CO., etc., Defendant-Appellant.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered October 21, 2004, which, in an action on a guaranty, granted plaintiff's motion and denied defendant's cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Defendant's failure to plead fraudulent concealment in its answer does not bar that defense, where defendant did not learn of the defense until some two years after it filed its answer. It could not in any event have moved for leave to amend since for most of the two-year period the action was stayed pending an arbitration between its subsidiary and plaintiff. When it did raise the defense in its cross motion for summary judgment shortly after the arbitration stay was lifted, plaintiff did not claim surprise or prejudice, and indeed opposed the defense on the merits (see Rogoff v. San Juan Racing Assn., 54 N.Y.2d 883, 444 N.Y.S.2d 911, 429 N.E.2d 418 [1981] ). Nor is the defense barred by the decision in the arbitration, which had nothing to do with whether plaintiff fraudulently induced defendant to guarantee its subsidiary's obligations. However, assuming, without deciding, that the defense is not barred by the terms of the guaranty, we find it fails on the merits. The parties, businesses on opposite sides of a transaction, and each represented by counsel, were not in a confidential or fiduciary relationship, and the allegedly concealed information, plaintiff's insolvency and dissolution, were matters of public record that defendant could have discovered by the exercise of ordinary diligence (see National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Red Apple Group, 273 A.D.2d 140, 141, 710 N.Y.S.2d 48 [2000]; Ferer & Sons v. Chase Manhattan Bank, 731 F.2d 112, 123 [2d Cir.1984]; WestRM-West Risk Mkts. v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 314 F.Supp.2d 229, 239 [S.D.N.Y.2004] ). In dismissing the defense, the motion court did not improperly decide an issue of fact against defendant, but merely applied law concerning fraudulent concealment and public records.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 05, 2006
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)