(2d Cir.1993)). Thus, with the exception of their respective first elements, the two torts are indistinguishable. “ ‘[I]t is well settled that mere allegations of breach of contract do not give rise to a claim for fraud or fraudulent inducement.’ ” OHM Remediation Servs. Corp. v. Hughes Envtl. Sys., Inc., 952 F.Supp. 120, 122 (N.D.N.Y.1997) (quotation and other citation omitted); see also D.S. Am. (East), Inc. v. Chromagrafx Imaging Sys., Inc., 873 F.Supp. 786, 795 (E.D.N.Y.1995). “General allegations that [the] defendant entered into a contract while lacking the intent to perform it are insufficient” to support a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation or concealment. N.Y. Univ. v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 87 N.Y.2d 308, 318, 639 N.Y.S.2d 283, 662 N.E.2d 763 (1995); TVT Records, 412 F.3d at 91 (<HOLDING>) (other citations omitted). “A fraud claim
holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding thatthe intention to breach does not give rise to a duty to disclose instead the duty to disclose must exist separately from the duty to perform under the contract citing bridgestonefirestone inc v recovery credit servs inc 98 f3d 13 20 2d cir1996 holding state has affirmative duty to disclose favorable and material evidence to defense holding that negligent breach of a duty assumed in a contract does not give rise to a separate tort claim holding that erisas duty of loyalty creates a duty to disclose certain information to beneficiaries