1537 Associates v. Kaprielian Enterprises, Inc.

259 A.D.2d 447, 687 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3255
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 30, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 447 (1537 Associates v. Kaprielian Enterprises, Inc.) 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
1537 Associates v. Kaprielian Enterprises, Inc., 259 A.D.2d 447, 687 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3255 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Huff, J.), entered July 1, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss defendants’ affirmative defenses and counterclaims [448]*448to the extent of dismissing the affirmative defense and counterclaim alleging fraud in the inducement, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While the general merger clause in the lease is ineffective to exclude the parol evidence of fraud in the inducement (see, Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317, 320; Blittner v Filroben Assocs., 183 AD2d 645), we nonetheless find that the motion court properly dismissed defendants’ affirmative defense and counterclaim because the misrepresentation alleged, regarding the size of the premises to be rented, was not one upon which defendants could have reasonably relied. The dimensions of the subject premises were not within plaintiffs peculiar knowledge and could have been ascertained had defendants diligently inspected the premises, as they were bound to, to insure the protection of their interests in the subject arm’s length commercial real estate transaction (see, Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d, supra, at 322; Busch v Mastropierro, 258 AD2d 492). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Andidas, JJ.

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

Related

New York City Educational Construction Fund v. Verizon New York Inc.
114 A.D.3d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Joseph v. NRT Inc.
18 Misc. 3d 296 (Civil Court of the City of New York, 2007)
Joseph v. NRT Inc.
43 A.D.3d 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 A.D.2d 447, 687 N.Y.S.2d 159, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/1537-associates-v-kaprielian-enterprises-inc-nyappdiv-1999.