Almap Holdings, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Almap Holdings, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co.

196 A.D.2d 518, 601 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8033

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

DecidedAugust 9, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 518 (Almap Holdings, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust 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

Almap Holdings, Inc. v. Bank Leumi Trust Co., 196 A.D.2d 518, 601 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8033 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for rescission of a contract based upon fraud and mistake, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered April 23, 1991, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and awarded the defendant attorney’s fees, disbursements and costs.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the necessary elements of a cause of action to rescind a contract on the ground of fraud (see, Channel Master Corp. v Aluminum Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403, 406-407; Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 452; 60 NY Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, § 11, at 446). Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant misrepresented a material fact or intentionally concealed [519]*519a material fact upon which the plaintiffs reasonably relied to their detriment (see, 60 NY Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, §§ 88, 89, at 564-565).

Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to prove either mutual mistake or the necessary elements involving unilateral mistake which would require the rescission of the contract and return of the security (see, Janowitz Bros. Venture v 25-30 120th St. Queens Corp., 75 AD2d 203, 214-215; McClain Realty v Rivers, 144 AD2d 216, 218; 21 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 121, at 528, 529; Calamari & Perillo, Contracts § 9-26, at 379 [3d ed 1987]).

The trial court did not err in awarding the defendant attorney’s fees, disbursements and costs based upon the clear provisions of the guaranty and the security agreement (see, Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487; Breed, Abbott & Morgan v Hulko, 139 AD2d 71, affd 74 NY2d 686). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for rescission of a contract based upon fraud and mistake, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roncallo, J.), entered April 23, 1991, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint and awarded the defendant attorney’s fees, disbursements and costs.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiffs failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the necessary elements of a cause of action to rescind a contract on the ground of fraud (see, Channel Master Corp. v Aluminum Ltd. Sales, 4 NY2d 403, 406-407; Simcuski v Saeli, 44 NY2d 442, 452; 60 NY Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, § 11, at 446). Specifically, the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendant misrepresented a material fact or intentionally concealed [519]*519a material fact upon which the plaintiffs reasonably relied to their detriment (see, 60 NY Jur 2d, Fraud and Deceit, §§ 88, 89, at 564-565).

Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to prove either mutual mistake or the necessary elements involving unilateral mistake which would require the rescission of the contract and return of the security (see, Janowitz Bros. Venture v 25-30 120th St. Queens Corp., 75 AD2d 203, 214-215; McClain Realty v Rivers, 144 AD2d 216, 218; 21 NY Jur 2d, Contracts, § 121, at 528, 529; Calamari & Perillo, Contracts § 9-26, at 379 [3d ed 1987]).

The trial court did not err in awarding the defendant attorney’s fees, disbursements and costs based upon the clear provisions of the guaranty and the security agreement (see, Hooper Assocs. v AGS Computers, 74 NY2d 487; Breed, Abbott & Morgan v Hulko, 139 AD2d 71, affd 74 NY2d 686). Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Fiber and O’Brien, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 518, 601 N.Y.S.2d 319, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8033, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/almap-holdings-inc-v-bank-leumi-trust-co-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack