“beyond a reasonable doubt”
It is a civil fraud trial, the standard is preponderous of evidence.
Interesting to me is how does one get charged when no one lost money?? Also, when one files estimates cited as same, the due diligence is on the lenders.
Precisely what I said. “reasonable doubt” isn’t involved, nor is unanimity of a jury, so there is no advantage to a jury trial.
Under New York law, the five elements of a civil fraud claim must be shown by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact (2) made by defendant with knowledge of its falsity (3) and intent to defraud; (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff; and (5)
resulting damage to the plaintiff.
Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir.1997);
Centro Empresarial Cempresa S.A. v. América Móvil, S.A.B. de C.V., 17 N.Y.3d 269, 276 (2011). Fraud may also be based on a “material omission of fact.”
Mandarin Trading Ltd. v. Wildenstein, 16 N.Y.3d 173, 178 (2011).The question for summary judgment is whether the evidence on the record could support a reasonable jury finding that the plaintiff has shown each element by clear and convincing evidence.
Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v. Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc., 888 F.Supp.2d 478, 484 (2012).
You are correct. The State of New York is the Plaintiff and it has NO damages. The MSJ was only a partial MSJ and apparently established elements of 1 - 4. Trial will be about element #5 - damages. If the State cannot satisfy that element at trial, the whole charge of civil fraud gets dismissed.