On December 2, 2021, the First Department issued a decision in Kim v. XP Sec., LLC, 2021 NY Slip Op. 06764, holding that a merger clause defeated a fraudulent inducement claim, explaining:
Plaintiff’s employment agreement contained a merger provision stating generally that the agreement superseded all prior agreements, as well as a no representations clause stating specifically, Plaintiff has not executed this Agreement in reliance upon any promise, representation, statement or warranty whatsoever, express or implied, which is not expressly contained in this Agreement. In light of these provisions, the motion court properly dismissed the fraudulent inducement claim, which was based on alleged misrepresentations made by Silveira regarding the development of an order management system and regarding whether XPI had access to the information technology resources of its parent company. Additionally, the peculiar knowledge exception to claims of fraudulent representation does not apply. Even if facts pertaining to the order management system and XPI’s access to the information technology resources of its parent company are peculiarly within the knowledge of defendant, plaintiff’s pleadings do not demonstrate that he exercised ordinary diligence in investigating defendant’s representations, despite their alleged importance to the employment agreement.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).