Carlton House, Inc. v. Goubaud de Paris Fifth Avenue, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carlton House, Inc. v. Goubaud de Paris Fifth Avenue, Ltd.

57 A.D.2d 819, 394 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12012

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

DecidedMay 26, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 819 (Carlton House, Inc. v. Goubaud de Paris Fifth Avenue, Ltd.) 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

Carlton House, Inc. v. Goubaud de Paris Fifth Avenue, Ltd., 57 A.D.2d 819, 394 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12012 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 13, 1976, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and motion granted. Appellants shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The complaint fails to allege any viable claim against the defendants-appellants. Requisite elements of fraud have not been alleged and the purported oral representations relied upon by plaintiff are clearly insufficient, in view of the merger clause contained in paragraph "20” of the lease agreement in suit. Plaintiffs reliance on paragraph "45” thereof is totally misplaced. That paragraph merely provides that if any removable fixtures are installed by the tenant they may be removed by it at the expiration of the lease term at the tenant’s expense, provided that the premises are restored to their present condition. This paragraph obviously does not require that any assets or fixtures be placed on the premises and does not constitute a representation concerning the ownership thereof. It was not meant to provide security for payments due under the lease. In short, that paragraph is totally irrelevant to the claims sought to be asserted. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Evans, Capozzoli and Markewich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 13, 1976, denying defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and motion granted. Appellants shall recover of respondent $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal. The complaint fails to allege any viable claim against the defendants-appellants. Requisite elements of fraud have not been alleged and the purported oral representations relied upon by plaintiff are clearly insufficient, in view of the merger clause contained in paragraph "20” of the lease agreement in suit. Plaintiffs reliance on paragraph "45” thereof is totally misplaced. That paragraph merely provides that if any removable fixtures are installed by the tenant they may be removed by it at the expiration of the lease term at the tenant’s expense, provided that the premises are restored to their present condition. This paragraph obviously does not require that any assets or fixtures be placed on the premises and does not constitute a representation concerning the ownership thereof. It was not meant to provide security for payments due under the lease. In short, that paragraph is totally irrelevant to the claims sought to be asserted. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Lupiano, Evans, Capozzoli and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 819, 394 N.Y.S.2d 703, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12012, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlton-house-inc-v-goubaud-de-paris-fifth-avenue-ltd-nyappdiv-1977.