On August 27, 2025, the Second Department issued a decision in Trepeta v. Mobiquity Tech., Inc., 2025 NY Slip Op. 04806, holding that a fraudulent inducement claim failed for lack of due diligence by the plaintiff, explaining:
To state a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement, there must be a knowing misrepresentation of material present fact, which is intended to deceive another party and induce that party to act on it, resulting in injury. The plaintiff must also establish that he or she reasonably relied upon the alleged misrepresentation. A plaintiff “‘is expected to exercise ordinary diligence and may not claim to have reasonably relied on a defendant’s representations where he or she has the means available to him or her of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation. Moreover, where it is alleged that the defendant fraudulently concealed a material fact, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant had a duty to disclose the subject information.
Here, the complaint, considered in conjunction with the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s affidavit submitted in opposition to the defendants’ motion, failed to state a cause of action to recover damages for fraudulent inducement with respect to the release. The plaintiff failed to adequately allege justifiable reliance on the defendants’ alleged misrepresentations, as the plaintiff had the means available to him of knowing by the exercise of ordinary intelligence the contents of his employment agreement. The plaintiff also failed to adequately allege that the defendants had a duty to disclose the allegedly-concealed material facts.
(Internal quotations and citations omitted).