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.
INNOVATIVE HEALTH SERVICES OF AMERICA, INC. AND SNYDER TRANSPORTATION, LLC, DOING BUSINESS AS FIRST CALL TRANSPORTATION, PLAINTIFFS–RESPONDENTS, v. THOMAS D. AYERS, DEFENDANT–APPELLANT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
(ACTION NO. 1.)
(ACTION NO. 2.)
(ACTION NO. 3.)
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In action No. 3, defendant appeals from an order that denied his motion for summary judgment on his counterclaim for breach of his employment agreement with plaintiff Innovative Health Services of America, Inc. (IHSA). Plaintiffs commenced action No. 3 seeking rescission of defendant's employment agreement and asserting causes of action for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. They alleged that, during the negotiation of defendant's employment agreement, defendant failed to disclose certain misconduct he committed while employed as chief executive officer of plaintiff Snyder Transportation, LLC, doing business as First Call Transportation (First Call). We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied defendant's motion.
“A contract induced by fraud ․ is subject to rescission, rendering it unenforceable by the culpable party” (Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v Wise Metals Group, LLC, 19 AD3d 273, 275), e.g., where a party deliberately conceals material information that he or she has a duty to disclose (see Post v. Xerox Corp., 163 A.D.2d 908, 909). Here, there are issues of fact whether defendant concealed material information concerning his prior misconduct at First Call when negotiating the employment agreement with IHSA. Because IHSA may thus be entitled to rescission of the agreement, defendant is not at this juncture entitled to summary judgment on his counterclaim seeking the benefits of that agreement. In light of our conclusion, we do not address defendant's remaining contention.
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
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: CA 15–01450
Decided: May 06, 2016
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
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)