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 A.D.3d 273, 275, 798 N.Y.S.2d 14 ), 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, 558 N.Y.S.2d 428 ). 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.

The plaintiff purposefully exploited defendant's good will and sympathy through false representations that she wanted to use the money to subsidize a period of rest and absence from career activities. She also concealed the fact, when offered the money, that she had already started working at a new, full-time, career-track job at another magazine, knowing that defendant would not have made the offer had it known of this other employment ( cf., Post v Xerox Corp., 163 A.D.2d 908). Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Therefore, the board's reliance on cases imposing a duty to disclose in the context of fraud is misplaced. None of the cases that the board cited involved a duty to disclose an individual's disability, or the need for a reasonable accommodation ( Sorbaro Co. v. Capital Video Corp., 245 AD2d 364 [2d Dept 1997] [defendant fraudulently represented use of lease premises to sell adult materials]; Lopez v. Time, Inc., 219 AD2d 569 [1st Dept 1995] [plaintiff not entitled to severance package because she failed to disclose she obtained employment elsewhere]; Post v. Xerox Corp., 163 AD2d 908 [4th Dept 1990] [omission of prior unethical conduct in application for company's job benefits]). The board also argues that it may inquire into an individual's handicap to fulfill its fiduciary obligations to its shareholders, citing Laurenti v. Water's Edge Habitat, Inc. ( 837 F Supp 507 [ED NY 1993]).