Hennech v. 219 West 20th Street Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hennech v. 219 West 20th Street Corp.

228 A.D.2d 235, 643 N.Y.2d 117, 643 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6517

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

DecidedJune 11, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 228 A.D.2d 235 (Hennech v. 219 West 20th Street Corp.) 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

Hennech v. 219 West 20th Street Corp., 228 A.D.2d 235, 643 N.Y.2d 117, 643 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6517 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

The findings and determination of the trial court were not against the weight of the credible evidence or contrary to law. Plaintiff failed to prove the requisite elements of either fraud (see, Katara v Jones Commodities, 835 F2d 966, 970-971) or mutual mistake (see, Rekis v Lake Minnewaska Mtn. Houses, 170 AD2d 124, 130, lv dismissed 79 NY2d 851). The weight of both the testimony and the documentary evidence established that the parties had engaged in an arm’s length real estate transaction and that plaintiff at all times understood that she was selling her building to defendant. The trial court also properly concluded that plaintiff had initially been represented by a real estate broker in arranging the deal. Further, even if such representation had not existed, the court’s conclusion that no fraud occurred was proper and should not be disturbed. Finally, the record demonstrates that none of the court’s comments prejudiced plaintiff and, in fact, the court treated her with patience and respect. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

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

The findings and determination of the trial court were not against the weight of the credible evidence or contrary to law. Plaintiff failed to prove the requisite elements of either fraud (see, Katara v Jones Commodities, 835 F2d 966, 970-971) or mutual mistake (see, Rekis v Lake Minnewaska Mtn. Houses, 170 AD2d 124, 130, lv dismissed 79 NY2d 851). The weight of both the testimony and the documentary evidence established that the parties had engaged in an arm’s length real estate transaction and that plaintiff at all times understood that she was selling her building to defendant. The trial court also properly concluded that plaintiff had initially been represented by a real estate broker in arranging the deal. Further, even if such representation had not existed, the court’s conclusion that no fraud occurred was proper and should not be disturbed. Finally, the record demonstrates that none of the court’s comments prejudiced plaintiff and, in fact, the court treated her with patience and respect. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 235, 643 N.Y.2d 117, 643 N.Y.S.2d 117, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6517, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hennech-v-219-west-20th-street-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack