[brief] ” (Pa69).  Thus, Defendant clearly misrepresented to the [...], and its inaugural class, that it had provided all requirements of the completing of a master’s degree, and fraudulently induced students into applying for, enrolling in, and paying seat deposits and tuition to [...]’s Pharmacy School.  The non-disclosure of these key requirements and material facts, such as the period to select whether to enter the dual degree program, is also a significant material misrepresentation.  This crucial detail was concealed from Plaintiff despite his significant efforts to gain as much knowledge into the program and its requirements as possible, and despite Defendant’s representation to the [...] that it had provided its prospective students with the requirements for enrollment into the master’s track part of the dual degree program.  More importantly, once Plaintiff did become aware of the newly added requirement language for the dual degree program to the [...] website, he spoke with several [...] employees such as [...], [...] and [...].  (Pa179; Pa243-Pa246; Pa458).  Crucially, [...] advised Plaintiff that he would be able to matriculate to the MBA program later, when his GPA was where it needed to be so that he would still finish the dual degree program by 2016.  (Pa246; Pa458).  This was also a materially false statement, as evidenced by Plaintiff having been denied entry into the program.  (Pa553–Pa555).  Due to this statement, Plaintiff was induced to remain committed to [...], and did not seek transfer opportunities.  Plaintiff also could have withdrawn from the program and/or taken less credits had he been aware that he would never be admitted to the dual degree program to pursue his master’s degree.  Yet, he was explicitly advised he would be able to enter into the program once his GPA reached 3.0.  Plaintiff could have, and likely would have, sought out a different opportunity by way of a transfer had he known that he was not able to enter the master’s track at any point in time, which was the reason he selected [...] in the first place.  Further, when Plaintiff was a current Pharm.D student, he asked [...] a very specific question related to admission to the master’s degree program.  (Pa158).  [...], responded via email, that Plaintiff’s minor in chemistry was a sufficient background for entry into the master’s program.  Id.  However, as previously stated, Plaintiff’s undergraduate credentials were not the only factors relevant to admission to the master’s program.  Thus, [...] made an “actual” false statement that he undeniably knew to be false.  Gennari, supra, 148 N.J. at 607.  These affirmative misrepresentations, which Plaintiff clearly reasonably relied upon, resulted in Plaintiff having been damaged.  The recipient of a fraudulent misrepresentation of fact is justified in relying upon its truth, although he might have ascertained the falsity of the representation had he made an investigation.  *Berman v. Gurwicz*, 178 N.J. Super. 611, 621 (Ch. Div. 1981), (citing Restatement, Torts 2d, s 540 (1977)).  The trial court erroneously usurped the role of the factfinder in granting Defendant [...]’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s misrepresentation claim.  Due to the existence of a material issue of fact, the motion for summary judgment should have been denied.  For the reasons set forth above, it is requested that this Court reverse the trial court, and permit Plaintiff to present his case to a jury.