Opinion
634 CA 19-01938
08-26-2021
2006905 ONTARIO INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GOODRICH AEROSPACE CANADA, LTD., and Dino Soave, Defendants-respondents.
ZDARSKY, SAWICKI & AGOSTINELLI LLP, BUFFALO (JOSEPH E. ZDARSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. NASH CONNORS, P.C., BUFFALO (PHILIP M. GULISANO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
ZDARSKY, SAWICKI & AGOSTINELLI LLP, BUFFALO (JOSEPH E. ZDARSKY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
NASH CONNORS, P.C., BUFFALO (PHILIP M. GULISANO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS.
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CARNI, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND WINSLOW, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.
Memorandum: In this action seeking damages for, inter alia, fraud allegedly arising from contract negotiations, plaintiff appeals from an order that, among other things, denied that part of its motion seeking partial summary judgment on certain elements of its fraud cause of action, i.e., the elements requiring a material misrepresentation of fact, knowledge of its falsity, and an intent to induce reliance (see generally Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP , 12 N.Y.3d 553, 559, 883 N.Y.S.2d 147, 910 N.E.2d 976 [2009] ). We affirm.
It is well settled that "fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; ‘loose, equivocal or contradictory’ evidence will not suffice" ( Callisto Pharm., Inc. v. Picker , 74 A.D.3d 545, 546, 903 N.Y.S.2d 370 [1st Dept. 2010] ; see George Backer Mgt. Corp. v. Acme Quilting Co. , 46 N.Y.2d 211, 219-220, 413 N.Y.S.2d 135, 385 N.E.2d 1062 [1978] ; see also Matter of Monto v. Zeigler , 183 A.D.3d 1294, 1295, 123 N.Y.S.3d 393 [4th Dept. 2020], lv denied 35 N.Y.3d 904, 2020 WL 2529798 [2020] ). It is also well settled that "[t]he proponent on a summary judgment motion bears the initial burden of establishing entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting evidence sufficient to eliminate any material issues of fact" ( Rice v. City of Buffalo , 145 A.D.3d 1503, 1504-1505, 44 N.Y.S.3d 281 [4th Dept. 2016] ; see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp. , 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 [1986] ). Here, contrary to plaintiff's contention, the evidence that it submitted in support of the motion failed to eliminate all questions of fact with respect to the elements of fraud in question. Consequently, Supreme Court properly denied the motion "regardless of the sufficiency of the opposing papers" ( Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr. , 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 [1985] ).
Plaintiff's remaining contentions are academic in light of our determination.