Skyview Capital, LLC v. Conduent Business Servs., LLC

Skyview Capital, 2025 NY Slip Op 03291 (Appellate Division First Department 2025) · Appellate Division, First Department · June 3, 2025 · No. Index No. 650761/20; Appeal No. 4507; Case No. 2024-00327

Summary

This Appellate Division, First Department opinion reviews cross-motions for summary judgment arising from an asset purchase agreement dispute between Skyview Capital and Conduent Business Services. The court modified the lower court's order, dismissing Skyview's fraud and punitive damages claims due to contractual disclaimers and lack of justifiable reliance, while affirming the denial of summary judgment on Skyview's breach of contract claims regarding ordinary course of business and material adverse effects. The court also remanded for a hearing on Conduent's third counterclaim concerning a deferred transfer payment and affirmed the dismissal of other counterclaims without costs.

Court
Appellate Division, First Department
Writing for the Court
Manzanet-Daniels, J.P.; González, J.; Mendez, J.; Pitt-Burke, J.; Rosado, J.
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
June 3, 2025
Docket number
Index No. 650761/20; Appeal No. 4507; Case No. 2024-00327
Procedural posture
Appeal from Supreme Court, New York County order granting in part and denying in part summary judgment motions.
Precedential value
Published
Parties
Skyview Capital, LLC v. Conduent Business Services, LLC
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

commercial litigationcontractssummary judgmentfraud

Practice areas

commercial litigationcontractscivil procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Skyview's fraud claim should be dismissed on summary judgment.
  2. Whether Conduent is entitled to partial summary judgment on its counterclaims, including the $5 million set‑off limit.
  3. Whether Skyview's contract claims should be dismissed, particularly the ordinary‑course‑of‑business and material adverse effect defenses.
  4. Whether the Jamaica Deferred Transfer counterclaim should be remanded for a hearing.

Holdings

  1. The fraud claim and its request for punitive damages are dismissed because the parties' agreements contain explicit disclaimers and Skyview, a sophisticated party, failed to verify the forecasts.
  2. Conduent is granted partial summary judgment on its first and second counterclaims, setting the set‑off limit at $5 million as provided in the APA.
  3. The court denies Conduent's motion to dismiss Skyview's contract claims; the ordinary‑course‑of‑business and material‑adverse‑effect defenses raise genuine issues of fact.
  4. The court remands for a hearing on the Jamaica Deferred Transfer claim because the amount due has not been agreed upon.

Key quotations

[s]omething which is done as a matter of corporate historical practice is, as a matter of law, done 'in the ordinary course of business'. (224 AD2d at 365)
failed to make use of the means of verification that were available to it (68 AD3d at 639)

Factual background

Conduent sold certain customer‑care call center assets (the "Liberty" business) to Skyview. Skyview alleged fraud for alleged nondisclosure of workforce reductions and a Q3 reforecast, and asserted contract claims concerning ordinary‑course‑of‑business representations and material adverse effect clauses. The parties exchanged forecasts and Skyview had access to Conduent’s books for a limited period.

Procedural history

The Supreme Court, New York County entered an order granting partial summary judgment to Conduent and Skyview and denying other motions. Both parties appealed to the Appellate Division, First Department.

Remand instructions

Hold a hearing on the disputed amount for the Jamaica Deferred Transfer claim.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…