OPINION AND ORDER
LORNA G. SCHOFIELD, District Judge.
Plaintiff Jimmy Solanki ("Solanki") brings this action pursuant to New York General Business Law §§ 683 and 687, commonly referred to as the Franchise Sales Act (the "FSA"), against Defendant 7-Eleven, Inc. ("7-Eleven"). Defendant moves for summary judgment dismissing the action in its entirety. For the reasons discussed below, this motion is denied.
The facts are taken from the parties' summary judgment submissions and, as is required on this motion, construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff, the nonmoving party.
Solanki purchased his first 7-Eleven franchise in 2003, located in Clifton, New Jersey and his second 7-Eleven franchise in 2005, located in Manhattan, New York. Solanki sold the Clifton, New Jersey store in 2009.
Shortly thereafter, Solanki became interested in purchasing a third 7-Eleven franchise in Brooklyn, New York, known as Store 34320, the store that is the subject of this lawsuit (the "Store"). In late May or early June 2009, Solanki met with 7-Eleven Franchise Sales Manager Martina Hagler ("Hagler") to discuss this possibility (the "Initial Meeting").
At or shortly following the Initial Meeting, Solanki received a copy of the July 2009 edition of 7-Eleven's Franchise Disclosure Document for New York. The document contained, among other things, "unaudited financial statements that show the most recently available annual averages of the actual sales, earnings and other financial performance... of franchised 7-Eleven stores." The document also included language cautioning franchisees that "[m]any factors will affect the actual sales and earnings of a store you franchise" and that they "should not predict any future results based on historical operating summaries."
At the Initial Meeting, Hagler explained the Franchise Disclosure Document and the application process to Solanki. Solanki had some familiarity with the process, as he had experienced it before with both of his prior 7-Eleven franchises.
Solanki testified that he had made up his mind that he wanted to purchase the Store before he received the Franchise Disclosure Document and that 7-Eleven would provide a Franchise Disclosure Document only after a potential franchisee had expressed an interest in acquiring a particular store. Solanki filed a declaration in opposition to this motion clarifying that, while he expressed an interest in the Store prior to viewing the Franchise Disclosure Document, he did not decide or commit to acquire the Store until after he had seen the document.
At or shortly following the Initial Meeting, Solanki also received a Business Plan Outline from 7-Eleven, which stated, "Acceptance of this plan by 7-Eleven in no way... represent[s] that 7-Eleven agrees that the sales, profits, expenses or other financial information reported in your plan are accurate, obtainable, or feasible." The Business Plan Outline also stated, "By reviewing or accepting the Store Budget, 7-Eleven is in no way representing that a particular store will achieve a certain level of sales, expenses, income or any other financial performance."
At the time he received the Business Plan Outline, Solanki signed a disclaimer, which stated, in part, "I/we acknowledge... that the acceptance of me/us as franchisee(s) by 7-Eleven is not to be construed as 7-Eleven's representation that the sales and earnings calculations which I/we have set forth in the sample financial statement for the store will be achieved."
Following the Initial Meeting, Solanki filled out the Business Plan Outline without anyone else's assistance or consultation except for the input and documents Defendant's personnel provided him. Using the outline, he prepared a business plan as required, projecting sales to be $1.5 million for the first year of operation. Solanki submitted his business plan to Hagler for approval by Defendant.
About two months after submitting his business plan, Solanki had another meeting ("Second Meeting") with Hagler and 7-Eleven Market Manager Sal Cangelosi ("Cangelosi"). At the Second Meeting, the representatives from 7-Eleven approved his business plan and told Solanki that he was a qualified candidate.
Defendant points to deposition testimony from Solanki, which Defendant interprets as saying that neither Hagler nor Cangelosi represented to Solanki at the Second Meeting that 7-Eleven had done its own revenue projections for the Store. Solanki counters in his declaration that, while neither Hagler nor Cangelosi directly stated that 7-Eleven had done its own projections, Hagler informed Solanki at the Second Meeting that the projections in his business plan were "consistent ...