Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Inc. v. Long Island R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 389, 521 N.Y.S.2d 653, 516 N.E.2d 190, (1987), quoted in Langenberg v. Sofair, 2006 WL 3518197, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.7, 2006). See also Sofi Classic S.A. de C.V. v. Hurowitz, 444 F.Supp.2d 231, 247-48 (S.D.N.Y.2006), quoting Rocanova v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc’y of U.S., 83 N.Y.2d 603, 612 N.Y.S.2d 339, 634 N.E.2d 940, 943-44 (1994) (“To recover punitive damages for a tort claim that ‘arises from’ a related contract claim, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the alleged misconduct was aimed at the public generally and that the misconduct evinced a ‘high degree of moral turpitude’ such as to imply a ‘criminal indifference to civil obligations.’ ”); Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. v. Allegheny Energy Inc., 382 F.Supp.2d 411, 422 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (<HOLDING>). Sellers have produced no evidence of any 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that exhaustion requirement applies to excessive force claims (B) recognizing fraud in the inducement claims independent of contract claims without discussion of economic loss rule (C) holding claimant did not have to segregate fees between fraud and contract claims because both claims were based on the same set of facts and circumstances (D) holding that sovereign immunity also applies to cross claims and third party claims (E) holding that the public harm requirement applies to fraudulent inducement claims because the fraud claims arise from related contract claims
Output (English): holding claimant did not have to segregate fees between fraud and contract claims because both claims were based on the same set of facts and circumstances