Court declined to dismiss fraud claim arising from corporate acquisition where defendants allegedly affirmatively concealed information demonstrating the material falsity of their representations, rendering plaintiffs' claim timely under the doctrine of tolling, and where defendants had caused damage by concealing the financial distress of the company.

Plaintiffs failed to establish rental lost profits.

Appellate Division Second Department: June 3, 2020

Defendant failed to meet the heightened pleading standard with regard to its fraud counterclaims, and it did not establish standing to pursue a claim under foreign copyright law.

Actions transferred from superior court to chancery court subject to a fully-briefed and argued motion to dismiss were subject to the chancery court's rule requiring plaintiffs subject to such a motion to either seek leave to amend or stand on their complaint and risk dismissal with prejudice; however, as a matter of first impression the court declined to enforce the rule on plaintiffs.