Extract to table

The documentary evidence must be "essentially undeniable" — that is, it must resolve all factual issues as a matter of law and definitively dispose of the plaintiff's claim

In addition, Vantor contends that even if the fraud claims are not duplicative, they fail to satisfy the heightened particularity requirements of CPLR § 3016(b), which requires that "the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail

3 must be read in harmony with the indemnification provision in § 9

Even if the Court were inclined to consider the potential applicability of the cap, resolution of that question requires a determination of whether Vantor's conduct constitutes fraud or willful misconduct — a factual question that cannot be resolved on a motion to dismiss, where all allegations must be accepted as true

On this motion, the Court must accept as true the Complaint's allegations that Vantor knowingly delivered false valuations and concealed evidence of the inflation

If those allegations are taken as true — as they must be under the CPLR § 3211(a)(7) standard — then the underlying conduct is fraud, and the liability cap is inapplicable as a matter of law