Howard v. Weaver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Howard v. Weaver

244 A.D.2d 225, 664 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11523

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 244 A.D.2d 225 (Howard v. Weaver) 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

Howard v. Weaver, 244 A.D.2d 225, 664 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered July 5, 1996, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint as against them for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly applied the doctrine of caveat emptor (see, Stambovsky v Ackley, 169 AD2d 254, 257; East 15360 Corp. v Provident Loan Socy., 177 AD2d 280, 281) in holding that defendant sellers did not commit an actionable fraud in representing that the apartments in question were registered with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal as exempt from rent stabilization while not also revealing that the basis for the exemption was owner occupancy. The representation that was made was sufficient to place plaintiffs on inquiry notice with respect to the status of the apartments, but plaintiffs do not allege that they made any inquiries. The IAS Court also correctly held that defendant appraiser’s report, commissioned after plaintiffs contracted to purchase the property, could not have caused plaintiffs’ loss. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered July 5, 1996, which granted defendants-respondents’ motions to dismiss the complaint as against them for failure to state a cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS Court properly applied the doctrine of caveat emptor (see, Stambovsky v Ackley, 169 AD2d 254, 257; East 15360 Corp. v Provident Loan Socy., 177 AD2d 280, 281) in holding that defendant sellers did not commit an actionable fraud in representing that the apartments in question were registered with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal as exempt from rent stabilization while not also revealing that the basis for the exemption was owner occupancy. The representation that was made was sufficient to place plaintiffs on inquiry notice with respect to the status of the apartments, but plaintiffs do not allege that they made any inquiries. The IAS Court also correctly held that defendant appraiser’s report, commissioned after plaintiffs contracted to purchase the property, could not have caused plaintiffs’ loss. Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

244 A.D.2d 225, 664 N.Y.S.2d 49, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11523, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/howard-v-weaver-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack