New York Times story
here. First Department decision
here. The case had been on life support for some time (although
not everyone noticed): everything but the fraud claim
had been thrown out earlier this year, and this decision got rid of that claim too, on the grounds that (a) Perelman, a "sophisticated" plaintiff, could not demonstrate reasonable reliance on the alleged fraud, because he "conducted no due diligence" of his own, and (b) statements about the value of art (which is what the fraud claim was about in this case) "constitute non-actionable opinion." Felix Salmon
nailed this one from the start.