Home Sales Realty, Inc. v. Unity Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Home Sales Realty, Inc. v. Unity Bank

40 A.D.3d 1035, 834 N.Y.S.2d 869

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

DecidedMay 29, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.3d 1035 (Home Sales Realty, Inc. v. Unity Bank) 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

Home Sales Realty, Inc. v. Unity Bank, 40 A.D.3d 1035, 834 N.Y.S.2d 869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated November 17, 2006, as, upon converting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7) to a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, granted that branch of the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the contract of sale, which specifically provided that the seller made no representations other than those expressly made in the contract, did not represent that there was no additional tax liability for tax arrears (see Valassis Communications v Weimer, 304 AD2d 448, 449 [2003]; Nancy Neale Enters. v Eventful Enters., 238 AD2d 322, 324 [1997]; Home Owners' Loan Corp. v Wood, 170 Misc 74 [1938]; see also Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90 [1985]; Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317 [1959]; Rodas v Manitaras, 159 AD2d 341 [1990]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Skelos and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Lally, J.), dated November 17, 2006, as, upon converting that branch of the defendant’s motion which was to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CFLR 3211 (a) (1), (5), and (7) to a motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, granted that branch of the motion.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by demonstrating that the contract of sale, which specifically provided that the seller made no representations other than those expressly made in the contract, did not represent that there was no additional tax liability for tax arrears (see Valassis Communications v Weimer, 304 AD2d 448, 449 [2003]; Nancy Neale Enters. v Eventful Enters., 238 AD2d 322, 324 [1997]; Home Owners' Loan Corp. v Wood, 170 Misc 74 [1938]; see also Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90 [1985]; Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317 [1959]; Rodas v Manitaras, 159 AD2d 341 [1990]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320 [1986]). Spolzino, J.P., Florio, Skelos and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.3d 1035, 834 N.Y.S.2d 869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/home-sales-realty-inc-v-unity-bank-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack