Practice point: While plaintiffs' claim that defendants used the
contract as a cover for a fraudulent billing scheme stated a fraud claim
separate from the contract claim, plaintiffs failed to specify which invoices
are inflated. Therefore, the claim lacked the particularity required by CPLR
3016. However, plaintiffs were given leave to replead this part of their
complaint, since the claim is otherwise meritorious on its face.
Student note: Plaintiffs' allegations of a run-of-the-mill commercial
dispute, involving only
these
parties, does not rise to the standard necessary to recover punitive damages.
Case:
Lax v. Design Quest N.Y. Ltd., N.Y. Slip Op
08406 (1st
Dept. 2012).
Here is the decision.
Tomorrow’s issue: Arbitration clauses.
