GSCP VI Edgemarc Holdings v. ETC Ne. Pipeline, LLC

3 Citing cases

  1. GSCP VI Edgemarc Holdings v. ETC Ne. Pipeline, LLC

    2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 33721 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2023)   Cited 1 times

    On July 15, 2020, this Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims for unjust enrichment, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud, and denied the motion to dismiss with respect to Plaintiffs claim for breach of contract (NYSCEF 93). On appeal, the First Department reinstated Plaintiffs fraud claim in part (to the extent it was based on Plaintiffs $50 million investment in 2017), and otherwise affirmed the Court's decision (GSCP VI Edge Marc Holdings, L.L.C. v ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 454, 454 [1st Dept 2021]). With respect to the remaining fraud claim, the court held that the complaint adequately pled that Defendant's August 2017 representations that the pipeline was "on track to be fully complete by January 2018 and ready for commercial service by July 1, 2018" were knowingly false and misleading (id.).

  2. Chan v. Havemeyer Holdings LLC

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 20 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Plaintiffs also seek the return of their lost investment, plus interest. While it is true that the complaint does not allege facts indicating that plaintiffs lost their entire investment, "[p]laintiffs are not required to plead damages for fraud with particularity" (GSCP VI EdgeMarc Holdings, L.L.C. v. ETC N.E. Pipeline, LLC, 192 A.D.3d 454, 456 [1st Dept 2021]). This is not a case like Gordon v. Dino De Laurentiis Corp. (141 A.D.2d 435 [1st Dept 1988]), where "no facts [we]re alleged from which can be inferred the essential element of injury" (id. at 437) and where "[t]he conclusory allegations of the complaint d[id] not contain any factual detail showing specific damages resulting from the purported misrepresentations" (id.).

  3. People v. The Nat'l Rifle Ass'n of Am.

    74 Misc. 3d 998 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2022)   Cited 3 times
    Noting "[t]hat [it] is true" the Attorney General "is entitled to seek judicial dissolution of a charitable entity that has violated the law"

    Frazer's alleged misconduct regarding supervision of the NRA's conflict-of-interest and related-party-transaction policies, his failure to appropriately handle related party transactions, and his failure to follow proper procedures regarding procurement, are also detailed in the Complaint (id. ¶¶ 402, 405, 476, 478-479, 490-494, 503-536, 553-562). Even assuming the heightened pleading standard under CPLR 3016 [b] applied to these claims (as Frazer contends), the scope and specificity of these allegations easily satisfy those standards (seeGSCP VI EdgeMarc Holdings, L.L.C. v. ETC Northeast Pipeline, LLC , 192 A.D.3d 454, 456, 144 N.Y.S.3d 168 [1st Dept. 2021] ["purpose of section 3016(b) ’s pleading requirement is to inform a defendant with respect to the incidents complained of."]).