Jacobson v. Croman

137 A.D.3d 501, 26 N.Y.S.3d 470
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 8, 2016
Docket443 600886/07
StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 501 (Jacobson v. Croman) 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
Jacobson v. Croman, 137 A.D.3d 501, 26 N.Y.S.3d 470 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Opinion

*502 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered August 29, 2014, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, ninth and tenth causes of action, unanimously modified, on the law, to grant the motion as to the sixth and ninth causes of action, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

With respect to the sixth cause of action, alleging fraudulent inducement, plaintiff does not allege, and the record does not contain any evidence, that defendant Steven Croman promised to construct a hotel on the property. The complaint alleges and plaintiff testified only that Croman “made representations and promises” that he “would . . . desire” to build a hotel. Such statements of future intentions or expressions of hope are not actionable (see Lincoln Place LLC v RVP Consulting, Inc., 16 AD3d 123, 124 [1st Dept 2005]).

The ninth cause of action, seeking a permanent injunction against construction of a residential apartment building on the property, is moot. The construction has already been completed, and plaintiff does not oppose dismissal of this cause of action.

With respect to the remaining causes of action at issue on this appeal, which were timely and properly asserted, issues of fact exist as to whether defendants’ alleged conduct in failing to develop the property breached any fiduciary duties or contractual obligations and whether any such breaches entitled plaintiff to refuse to comply with the provision of the operating agreement allowing defendants to buy out his interest at fair market value.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, ManzanetDaniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Related

Lincoln Place LLC v. RVP Consulting, Inc.
16 A.D.3d 123 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
137 A.D.3d 501, 26 N.Y.S.3d 470, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jacobson-v-croman-nyappdiv-2016.