Houbigant, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche

In Houbigant, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, 303 AD2d 92, 98, 753 N.Y.S.2d 493 (1st Dep't 2003), the Court held that a plaintiff, which licensed the marketing and sales of its perfumes to various subsidiaries of a company audited by defendant accounting firm, stated a valid cause of action for fraud based upon allegations that the defendant knew, from the contractual requirement that the licensee forward audited statements to plaintiff, that plaintiff was relying upon defendant's audits to assure itself that the licensee was satisfying the requirements that it maintain a $ 10 million net worth and that it remain solvent. The Court specifically stated that as to the motion court's reasoning that the fraud claim must fail because it cannot be inferred that defendant made the misrepresentations with the specific intent to induce plaintiff's acts, the law does not require such specific intent for a fraud claim. Rather, the plaintiff must only allege facts from which it may be inferred that the defendant was aware that its misrepresentations would be reasonably relied upon by the plaintiff, not that the defendant intended to induce the particular acts of detrimental reliance ultimately undertaken by the plaintiff. Houbigant, Inc. v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, supra at 100.