1166 EJM LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

1166 EJM LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Co.

50 A.D.3d 424, 855 N.Y.S.2d 479

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 15, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 424 (1166 EJM LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

1166 EJM LLC v. Marsh & McLennan Co., 50 A.D.3d 424, 855 N.Y.S.2d 479 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 6, 2007, dismissing the action, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 28, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

This action for reformation sought a $5 million reduction in the selling price of several floors of a commercial condominium building based on the seller’s alleged failure to disclose certain utility charges. The court correctly interpreted the unambiguous provisions (see White v Continental Cas. Co., 9 NY3d 264, 267 [2007]) in the contract between these sophisticated parties in finding plaintiff’s claims barred by, inter alia, the specific disclaimer regarding expenses and income (see generally Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317 [1959]), the [425]*425disclaimer of reliance, and the acknowledgment that plaintiff had been afforded the opportunity to conduct its own investigation. The evidence did not support plaintiffs contention that the disclaimers should be circumvented by any alleged disparity of knowledge between the parties.

We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Louis B. York, J.), entered December 6, 2007, dismissing the action, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered November 28, 2007, which granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs. Appeal from the aforesaid order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed in the appeal from the judgment.

This action for reformation sought a $5 million reduction in the selling price of several floors of a commercial condominium building based on the seller’s alleged failure to disclose certain utility charges. The court correctly interpreted the unambiguous provisions (see White v Continental Cas. Co., 9 NY3d 264, 267 [2007]) in the contract between these sophisticated parties in finding plaintiff’s claims barred by, inter alia, the specific disclaimer regarding expenses and income (see generally Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317 [1959]), the [425]*425disclaimer of reliance, and the acknowledgment that plaintiff had been afforded the opportunity to conduct its own investigation. The evidence did not support plaintiffs contention that the disclaimers should be circumvented by any alleged disparity of knowledge between the parties.

We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Lippman, EJ., Tom, Williams and Acosta, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 424, 855 N.Y.S.2d 479, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1166-ejm-llc-v-marsh-mclennan-co-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack