With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". buyer’s duties to abide by the terms of the sales contract executed by the parties. Here, TIA points to no collateral fraudulent promise ...”) (citations omitted); see also Town of Haverstraw v. Columbia Electric Corp., 237 F.Supp.2d 452, 456 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (explaining that a fraud claim is viable where a plaintiff is induced to enter a contract based on extraneous representations but not where the misrepresentation is merely the promise to perform under a contract). LCO’s argument premised on Rule 8’s alternative pleading allowance is also unavailing. A fraud claim does not exist under New York law when the claim is premised solely upon the allegation that a party made false statements of intent to perform under an agreement. See Druyan v. Jagger, 508 F.Supp.2d 228, 240 (S.D.N.Y.2007) (<HOLDING>); Soft Classic S.A. de C.V. v. Hurowitz, 444

A: holding that a fraud claim premised on thirdparty reliance raises a cognizable claim under new york law
B: holding that the most analogous claim for relief under new york law is a claim for employment discrimination
C: holding that allegations of intent or concealment that merely relate to defendants performance of contractual obligations do not state a claim for fraud under new york law
D: holding that under new york law a dismissal for failure to comply with discovery obligations is not a judgment on the merits and does not bar a subsequent suit involving the same parties and issues
C.