In Stuart Silver Associates, Inc. v. Baco Development Corp., 245 AD2d 96, 665 N.Y.S.2d 415 (1st Dept. 1997), the Court affirmed the lower court's order granting summary judgment to defendants on plaintiffs' claim of fraudulent inducement. In Silver, plaintiffs alleged that defendants had misrepresented certain facts with respect to a real estate development project - - including documents containing allegedly misleading financial information regarding defendants' projection of an 8% return on their investment - - which induced defendants to invest in plaintiffs' venture. When the project faltered, plaintiffs brought suit, maintaining that they had been misled by such misrepresentations into entering into the agreement and sought damages for fraud. The First Department rejected plaintiffs' fraud claim on the ground that even assuming that the projections were false, plaintiffs had the means and information at their disposal to investigate the bona fides of defendants' assertions. Since plaintiffs apparently chose not to conduct such an investigation, they "failed to state a fraud claim because they cannot show that their alleged reliance was justified." (Id. at 417-418). As the Court reasoned: "The elements of a cause of action for fraud are a representation concerning a material fact, falsity of that representation, scienter, reliance and damages. Plaintiff must show not only that he actually relied on them is representations, but also that such reliance was reasonable. Where a party has the means to discover the true nature of the transaction by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, and fails to make use of the those means, he cannot claim justifiable reliance of defendant's misrepresentations. The parties here disagree as to whether Politis ever promised an 8% return. Moreover, Politis argues that plaintiffs knew or should have known that the figures in the offering materials were merely future projections subject to change as the details of the project changed, not guaranteed figures. Yet, even if we assume that Politis made all of the disputed statements and intended to induce reliance thereupon, plaintiffs have failed to state a fraud claim because they cannot show that their alleged reliance was justified. Plaintiffs were relatively sophisticated investors who should have understood the risks of investing in a real estate venture without conducting a "due diligence" investigation or consulting their lawyers and accountants." (Id. At 417-418.)