Curtis v. Bouley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curtis v. Bouley

127 A.D.3d 584, 8 N.Y.S.3d 107

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

DecidedApril 21, 2015

Docket104558/11 14887 14886

StatusPublished

This text of 127 A.D.3d 584 (Curtis v. Bouley) 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

Curtis v. Bouley, 127 A.D.3d 584, 8 N.Y.S.3d 107 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 30, 2013, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a prior order denying his motion for a license pursuant to RPAPL 881 to enter adjacent premises, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 12, 2013, which denied plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By the time the April 30, 2013 order was issued, as the motion court observed therein, defendants no longer had possession or control over the premises that plaintiff sought to enter, and plaintiff had been granted access by the new occupant; indeed, plaintiff concedes on appeal that he has made the repairs for which he sought access.

The proposed amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud since it does not allege that plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant David Bouley’s alleged misrepresentations to his detriment (see Meyercord v Curry, 38 AD3d 315 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Acosta, J.R, Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen A. Rakower, J.), entered April 30, 2013, which denied plaintiffs motion to vacate a prior order denying his motion for a license pursuant to RPAPL 881 to enter adjacent premises, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as moot. Order, same court and Justice, entered July 12, 2013, which denied plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

By the time the April 30, 2013 order was issued, as the motion court observed therein, defendants no longer had possession or control over the premises that plaintiff sought to enter, and plaintiff had been granted access by the new occupant; indeed, plaintiff concedes on appeal that he has made the repairs for which he sought access.

The proposed amended complaint fails to state a cause of action for fraud since it does not allege that plaintiff reasonably relied on defendant David Bouley’s alleged misrepresentations to his detriment (see Meyercord v Curry, 38 AD3d 315 [1st Dept 2007]).

Concur — Acosta, J.R, Saxe, Richter, Gische and Kapnick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

127 A.D.3d 584, 8 N.Y.S.3d 107, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-v-bouley-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack