The Law Lion Logo - AI-powered legal writing assistantThe Law Lion
Home
Features
Pricing
Services
AboutBlogCasesContactEarn with us
Login
Ask Law Lion AI
  1. Home
  2. >Cases
  3. >Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

No. 03-7319·Judge: Feinberg, Pauley, Wesley·Attorney: Jack Meyerson, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff-Appellant., Andrew R. Kosloff, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee J.P. Morgan Chase Bank (formerly known as The Chase Manhattan Bank N.A.)., David Lenefsky, New York, NY, for Defendant-Appellee Michelino Morelli.0 citations·Filed January 7, 2004

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  • Key Issues of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  • Key Facts of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  • Decision of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment...

Table of Contents

  • Summary of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  • Key Issues of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  • Key Facts of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  • Decision of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.
  • Opinions
  • Opinions
  • SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment...

Summary of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

The court affirmed the district court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to state a cause of action against Michelino Morelli and The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. for aiding and abetting common law fraud and commercial bad faith. The plaintiff did not meet the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b) or establish that the defendants had actual knowledge of the fraud.

Key Issues of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

  • Aiding and abetting common law fraud
  • Commercial bad faith

Key Facts of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

  • Plaintiff failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action for aiding and abetting fraud.
  • Plaintiff failed to establish that Chase had actual knowledge of the fraud.

Decision of the case Renner v. Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A.

Affirmed

Opinions

SUMMARY ORDER UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED. Familiarity is assumed as to the facts, the procedural context and the specification of appellate issues. We agree with, and affirm, the district court’s thoughtful and thorough analysis finding that plaintiff (1) failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action against appellees Michelino Morelli (“Morelli”) and The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (“Chase”) for aiding and abetting common law fraud and (2) failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action against appellee Chase for commercial bad faith. See Renner v.

Chase Manhattan Bank, 2000 WL 781081 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Appellant alleges that Chase, through its branch manager Morelli, aided and abetted in the commission of a common law fraud by Townsend, Wolford and other unnamed defendants. Where, as here, a plaintiff has alleged fraud, he must comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b), which states that “[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge, and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.” To comply with the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b), a party must (1) specify the alleged fraudulent statements; (2) identify the speaker; (3) state where, when and to whom the statements were made; and (4) explain why the statements were fraudulent.

Mills v. Polar Molecular Corp., 12 F.3d , 1175 (2d Cir.1993). Moreover, while scienter may be averred generally, it is nonetheless incumbent upon a plaintiff to allege facts that give rise to a strong inference of fraudulent intent. See Shields v.

Citytrust Bancorp, Inc., 25 F.3d 1124, 1128 (2d Cir.1994). To plead a claim for fraud in New York, plaintiff must establish by clear and convincing evidence, “a material, false representation, an intent to defraud thereby, and reasonable reliance on the representation, causing damage to the plaintiff.” Chanayil v. Gulati, 169 F.3d 168, 171 (2d Cir.1999). To plead an aiding and abetting claim under New York law, the plaintiff must establish the existence of a violation by the primary wrongdoer, knowledge of this violation by the aider and abettor and proof that the aider and abettor substantially assisted in the primary wrong.

Armstrong v. McAlpin, 699 F.2d 79, 91 (2d Cir.1983). As to the knowledge requirement, New York courts require that the alleged abettor have actual knowledge of the primary wrong. See, e.g., Wight v.

Bankamerica Corp., 219 F.3d 79, 91 (2d Cir.2000) (emphasis added). Under these standards, the district court’s dismissal of the aiding and abetting fraud claims was proper. Plaintiffs amended complaint failed to sufficiently plead that either Morelli or Chase, as aiders and abettors, had actual knowledge of the primary wrongdoer’s fraud and substantially assisted in the primary wrongdoing. The district court also correctly dismissed plaintiffs commercial bad faith claim against Chase as plaintiff faded to establish that Chase had actual knowledge of, or participated in, the fraud. A claim for commercial bad faith lies “[w]here a depository bank acts dishonestly — where it has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that amount to bad "faith, thus itself becoming a participant in a fraudulent scheme.... ” Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc. v.

Citibank, N.A., 73 N.Y.2d 263, 275, 539 N.Y.S.2d 699, 536 N.E.2d 1118 (1989) (emphasis added). New York courts have also required that a member of the bank be an active participant in the fraud to establish commercial bad faith. See id. Because we agree with the district court that plaintiff failed to allege that either Chase or Morelli had actual knowledge of the fraudulent scheme and that Morelli’s alleged participation in the fraud was not sufficiently pleaded, it follows that the commercial bad faith claim was also properly dismissed.

For the reasons set forth above, the judgment of the District Court is hereby AFFIRMED.

The Law Lion logoThe Law Lion.

The Law Lion is the only platform combining AI legal writing grounded in real case law with an expert human writing service — serving attorneys, paralegals, and everyday people nationwide.

info@thelawlion.com
Mon–Fri 9am–6pm EST · Rush available
Serving Clients Nationwide

AI Tool

  • → AI Legal Writing Tool
  • → AI Document Drafting
  • → Motion Drafting
  • → Contract Drafting
  • → Legal Research
  • → Case Law Search
  • → Citation Generator
  • → Document Review
  • → Contract Review
  • → For Lawyers

Writing Service

  • → Eviction Defense
  • → Court Documents
  • → Custody & Family
  • → Divorce Documents
  • → Debt & Collections
  • → All Writing Services

Top Guides

  • → Eviction Response Guide
  • → Best AI Legal Tools 2026
  • → Debt Validation Letter Guide

Company

  • → About The Law Lion
  • → Client Results
  • → Transparent Pricing
  • → Legal Guides & Blog
  • → Contact & Free Consult
  • → Affiliate Program

Top Services

  • → Eviction Notice Response
  • → Debt Validation Letter
  • → Court Summons Response
© 2026 The Law Lion LLC · AI Legal Writing & Expert Document Service
Privacy PolicyTerms of ServiceSitemap