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.
Success, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs-Respondents,
-against-
Stonehenge Capital Company, LLC, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants,
Alan Brown, et al.,
Defendants.
Stern Tannenbaum & Bell LLP, New York (David S. Tannenbaum of counsel), for Stonehenge Capital Company, LLC, appellant.
McCarter & English, LLP, New York (Gregory J. Hindy of counsel), for W. Stephen Keller, appellant.
Goldman & Weintraub, P.C., Pine Plains (Robert E. Goldman of counsel), for Success, LLC, R & D Films, Inc., and Ethan Goldman, respondents.
Raskin Ritter, LLP, Culver City (Christopher I. Ritter of counsel), for Bad Company Films and Aldo Lapietra, respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman J.), entered February 23, 2010, which, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants-appellants' motions for summary judgment dismissing the fraud-based causes of action as against them and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment solely to the extent that defendant Stonehenge is liable for the misrepresentations of defendant Keller, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The fraud-based causes of action, which were stated with sufficient particularity (see CPLR 3016[b] ), were properly allowed to proceed. Unlike the breach of contract claims that the motion court dismissed, the fraud claims are not based upon misrepresentations about the funding of plaintiffs' film project. Rather, the fraud claims are based a misrepresentation of then-present facts, e.g., that the budget for the film had actually been approved and that all conditions precedent had been met. Such misrepresentations are collateral to the contract, as they involve a breach of duty separate from a breach of contract (see First Bank of Ams. v. Motor Car Funding, 257 A.D.2d 287, 291-292 [1999] ).
The court's misstatement of fact in its order, namely, that a particular memorandum entitled “Success Film Financing Package” had been circulated to defendant Stonehenge, does not affect our determination.
We have considered appellants' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 4245
Decided: February 10, 2011
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)