and (4) damages.” TVT Records v. Island Def Jam Music Group, 412 F.3d 82, 90-91 (2d Cir.2005) (citing Brass v. Am. Film Techs., Inc., 987 F.2d 142, 15 be dismissed as redundant when it merely restates a breach of contract claim, i.e., when the only fraud alleged is that the defendant was not sincere when it promised to perform under the contract.” First Bank of Americas v. Motor Car Funding, Inc., 257 A.D.2d 287, 690 N.Y.S.2d 17, 20-21 (1st Dep’t 1999) (citation omitted). The Second Circuit has consistently held that an allegation that a party entered into a contract with no intention of performing that contract is generally insufficient to support a fraud claim under New York law. See TVT Records, 412 F.3d at 91; Manning v. Utils. Mut. Ins. Co., 254 F.3d 387, 401 (2d Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>); Bridgestone/Firestone, 98 F.3d at 19-20
holding that mutuality of obligation is essential for contracts based on mutual promises and that a contract is unenforceable where a party is free to perform or not perform the contract holding that the right of action accrued upon failure to perform contract holding that fraud claim requires proof that the defendant made a material representation that was false holding that a representation which is merely a statement of intent to perform under the contract cannot constitute fraud recognizing that an expression of opinion about monetary value is not a representation of fact which gives rise to an action for fraud