First New York Realty Co. v. RMC Enterprises, L. L. C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

First New York Realty Co. v. RMC Enterprises, L. L. C.

250 A.D.2d 539, 673 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5950

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 250 A.D.2d 539 (First New York Realty Co. v. RMC Enterprises, L. L. C.) 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

First New York Realty Co. v. RMC Enterprises, L. L. C., 250 A.D.2d 539, 673 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 29, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Documentary evidence, namely, the letter of understanding, conclusively shows that plaintiffs’ alleged reliance upon any promise by defendants to pay for their services was unjustified (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; see, Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 318; Linnane v Lanzellotto, 202 AD2d 400). The parties expressly agreed that defendants’ obligation to assign a 10% interest in the building was conditioned upon consummation of the “transactions contemplated hereunder * * * to [defendants’] reasonable satisfaction”. Thus, it is clear that plaintiffs, sophisticated real estate developers, assumed the risk of defendants’ dissatisfaction with their services, precluding recovery on the theory of fraud (cf, Trick v County of Westchester, 216 AD2d 555). Nor, under the facts alleged, can there be a recovery under plaintiffs’ alternative theory of quantum meruit, since, as a matter of law, the letter of understanding, contrary to plaintiffs’ characterization, is an enforceable contract that governs their right, if any, to payment (see, Bauman Assocs. v H & M Inti. Transp., 171 AD2d 479, 483-484). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered January 29, 1998, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Documentary evidence, namely, the letter of understanding, conclusively shows that plaintiffs’ alleged reliance upon any promise by defendants to pay for their services was unjustified (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; see, Four Seasons Hotels v Vinnik, 127 AD2d 310, 318; Linnane v Lanzellotto, 202 AD2d 400). The parties expressly agreed that defendants’ obligation to assign a 10% interest in the building was conditioned upon consummation of the “transactions contemplated hereunder * * * to [defendants’] reasonable satisfaction”. Thus, it is clear that plaintiffs, sophisticated real estate developers, assumed the risk of defendants’ dissatisfaction with their services, precluding recovery on the theory of fraud (cf, Trick v County of Westchester, 216 AD2d 555). Nor, under the facts alleged, can there be a recovery under plaintiffs’ alternative theory of quantum meruit, since, as a matter of law, the letter of understanding, contrary to plaintiffs’ characterization, is an enforceable contract that governs their right, if any, to payment (see, Bauman Assocs. v H & M Inti. Transp., 171 AD2d 479, 483-484). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 539, 673 N.Y.S.2d 419, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-new-york-realty-co-v-rmc-enterprises-l-l-c-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack