On June 18, 2026, the First Department issued a decision in Leinhardt v. Socure, Inc., 2026 NY Slip Op. 03881, holding that a fraud claim failed because the plaintiff was not reasonable in relying on incomplete information, explaining:
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the releases he signed and because he failed to allege a fraud separate from the subject of the releases.
The special facts, or peculiar knowledge, doctrine, which the motion court relied on is inapplicable here where, plaintiffs are sophisticated parties that were aware that they were not provided with full information but nonetheless agreed to go forward with a transaction without either demanding access to the omitted information or assurances in the form of representations and warranties.
Plaintiff’s fraud claims also fail for lack of reasonable reliance. Plaintiff, an attorney, knew that he had not received all the information he requested, but nevertheless, entered into the 2018 Settlement Agreement and Releases and the Stock Repurchase Agreement. In the Repurchase Agreement, he also represented and warranted that he had all the information he needed to decide whether to sell his shares. In addition, both the 2018 Settlement Agreement and the Repurchase Agreement state that plaintiff was not relying on any extracontractual representations.
(Internal citations omitted).