Opinion
652726/11, 3492A, 3492.
03-23-2017
GEMMON LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. Vera Wang BECKER, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
Law Offices of James G. McCarney, New York (James G. McCarney of counsel), for appellant. Wachtel Missry LLP, New York (Steven J. Cohen of counsel), for respondents.
Law Offices of James G. McCarney, New York (James G. McCarney of counsel), for appellant.
Wachtel Missry LLP, New York (Steven J. Cohen of counsel), for respondents.
TOM, J.P., FRIEDMAN, MAZZARELLI, KAPNICK, KAHN, JJ.
Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J.), entered December 14, 2015, dismissing the complaint as to each defendant, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The court properly dismissed the fraud claim against individual defendant Vera Wang Becker because the amended complaint failed to plead any misrepresentations made by her to plaintiff, since plaintiff dealt with others and there were no allegations that she authorized the alleged misrepresentations by others with knowledge of their falsity (see National Westminster Bank USA v. Weksel, 124 A.D.2d 144, 147, 511 N.Y.S.2d 626 [1st Dept.1987], appeal denied 70 N.Y.2d 604, 519 N.Y.S.2d 1027, 513 N.E.2d 1307 [1987] ). Becker had no duty to plaintiff to disclose confidential negotiations concerning a possible licensing agreement with Kohl's (see Jolly King Rest. v. Hershey Chan Realty, 214 A.D.2d 422, 625 N.Y.S.2d 35 [1st Dept.1995] ).
The court properly found that defendant Vera Wang Bridal House (VWBH) sustained its initial burden of demonstrating the absence of loss causation based on evidence that plaintiff's business was in arrears before Kohl's began selling Vera Wang merchandise; VWBH had a substantial quantity of fine jewelry accessible to plaintiff, when its account was brought current; the change in the manufacturer of the fragrance products did not result in an unwarranted delay in the availability of the merchandise; and VWBH had no obligation to continue its relationship with any particular vendor.
Plaintiff failed to present evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to these issues. The "prevention doctrine" is unavailing because it is applicable only to conditions precedent (see Thor Props., LLC v. Cherit Group LLC, 91 A.D.3d 476, 477, 936 N.Y.S.2d 196 [1st Dept.2012] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.