have found for the [mov-ant].” ’ ” Kim v. Hurston, 182 F.3d 113, 117 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting Vermont Plastics, Inc. v. Brine, Inc., 79 F.3d 272, 277 (2d Cir.1996) (quoting In re Joint Eastern & Southern Dist. Asbestos Litig., 52 F.3d 1124, 1131 (2d Cir.1995))); see also Stratton v. Department for the Aging, 132 F.3d 869, 878 (2d Cir.1997). 2. Fraud Under New York law, a plaintiff alleging fraud must prove, by clear and convincing evidence: (1) a material misrepresentation or omission of fact, (2) made with knowledge of its falsity, (3) with an intent to defraud, (4) reasonable reliance on the part of the plaintiff, and (5) injury to plaintiff. Schlaifer Nance & Co. v. Estate of Andy Warhol, 119 F.3d 91, 98 (2d Cir.1997); see generally Stewart v. Jackson & Nash, 976 F.2d 86 (2d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). On this motion, two elements are of principal
holding that if the alleged misrepresentations are material a plaintiff is entitled to recovery whether or not the misrepresentations caused the alleged damage holding that an employee who did not present evidence that she could have returned to work prior to the expiration of her fmla leave allowance was not entitled to additional leave merely because her employer had not properly provided her with notice that the leave was designated as fmla leave holding that attorney stated a claim for fraud when she was induced by alleged misrepresentations of fact to leave employment with prior law firm to join defendant law firm holding that punitive damages award against vicariously liable law firm was not excessive in part because the award is proportionate to the law firms financial position holding direct misrepresentations were not required for mail fraud conviction