form the basis of D'Alessio’s injurious falsehood claim. See, e. g., Squire Records v. Vanguard Recording Soc’y, 25 A.D.2d 190, 192, 268 N.Y.S.2d 251, 254 (1st Dep't 1966), aff’d, 19 N.Y.2d 797, 279 N.Y.S.2d 737, 226 N.E.2d 542 (1967). D'Alessio's fraudulent deceit and concealment claim arises out of the NYSE’s alleged misinterpretation and purposeful concealment of the federal securities laws and various regulations and rules applicable to D'Alessio's trading activities, which were the basis of the charges brought by the government. The negligent misrepresentation claim is based on allegedly false statements made by the NYSE to D’Alessio in connection with their SRO-member relationship. See, e. g., Pappas v. Harrow Stores, 140 A.D.2d 501, 504, 528 N.Y.S.2d 404, 407 (2d Dep't 1988) (<HOLDING>). Finally, D'Alessio's breach of contract claim
holding that some special relationship between the parties is required to recover under the theory of negligent misrepresentation holding that no special relationship existed between the school and student holding that the special relationship exception does not apply to the relationship between a student and a school holding that where a statutes definition of intimate relationship was silent on whether a sexual relationship was required and some of the examples included in the definition implied a sexual relationship but some did not it was ambiguous and the court was required to look beyond its text to resolve that ambiguity recognizing the existence of the special relationship