Search for: "Lama Holding v. Smith Barney"
Results 1 - 8
of 8
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
5 Feb 2008, 3:11 am
Thus, plaintiffs fail to allege how defendants' error damaged them (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421-422 [1996]; Zarin v Reid & Priest, 184 AD2d 385, 386-387 [1992]). [read post]
5 Feb 2008, 3:11 am
Thus, plaintiffs fail to allege how defendants' error damaged them (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421-422 [1996]; Zarin v Reid & Priest, 184 AD2d 385, 386-387 [1992]). [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am
Sapienza v Becker & Poliakoff 2019 NY Slip Op 05218 Decided on June 27, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department is an example: “Plaintiff’s fraud claim was properly dismissed, as plaintiff did not allege “actual pecuniary loss sustained” by plaintiff’s decedent individually “as the direct result of” defendants’ alleged fraud (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d… [read post]
28 Jun 2019, 6:03 am
Sapienza v Becker & Poliakoff 2019 NY Slip Op 05218 Decided on June 27, 2019 Appellate Division, First Department is an example: “Plaintiff’s fraud claim was properly dismissed, as plaintiff did not allege “actual pecuniary loss sustained” by plaintiff’s decedent individually “as the direct result of” defendants’ alleged fraud (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d… [read post]
1 Mar 2024, 6:12 am
Furthermore, in the third action, plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for fraud, as he did not sufficiently allege out-of-pocket losses that stemmed from any alleged fraud, but rather, asserted only speculative losses (see Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). [read post]
13 Apr 2015, 3:23 am
Accordingly, dismissal of both the fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims was warranted (see generally Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney Inc., 88 NY2d 413, 421 [1996]). [read post]
11 Feb 2010, 4:10 am
"In an action to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiff must prove a misrepresentation or a material omission of fact which was false and known to be false by [the] defendant, made for the purpose of inducing the other party to rely upon it, justifiable reliance of the other party on the misrepresentation or material omission, and injury" (Lama Holding Co. v Smith Barney, 88 NY2d 413, 421). [read post]
