Legal Opinion

Mateo v. Senterfitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 15, 2011PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

*516The cause of action for negligent misrepresentation is insufficiently stated because plaintiffs, who assert their claims on their own behalf and as assignees of third-party defendant Peter Skyllas, do not allege that either they or Skyllas were in contractual privity with defendant (see J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky, 8 NY3d 144, 148 [2007]). Nor do their allegations that defendant communicated directly with Skyllas in e-mails, representing that it was undertaking due diligence to verify that defendant/third-party plaintiff Henry Vargas owned a majority interest in 2141 MD Jr., LLC and…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Derdiarian v. Felix Contracting Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1980
  2. Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLPNew York Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. Ossining Union Free School District v. AndersonNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  4. Prudential Insurance v. Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & WoodNew York Court of Appeals · 1992
  5. J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v. StavitskyNew York Court of Appeals · 2007

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Pennsylvania Public School Employees' Retirement System v. Morgan Stanley & Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2014
  2. US Express Leasing, Inc. v. Elite Technology (NY), Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2011
  3. U.S. Tsubaki Holdings, Inc. v. EstesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021
  4. U.S. Tsubaki Holdings, Inc. v. EstesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2021

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API