Laczko v. Bear Ridge Lake Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laczko v. Bear Ridge Lake Corp.

280 A.D. 813, 113 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3796

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

DecidedJune 16, 1952

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D. 813 (Laczko v. Bear Ridge Lake 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

Laczko v. Bear Ridge Lake Corp., 280 A.D. 813, 113 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1952).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover moneys paid by appellant on a contract for the purchase of unimproved real property, which contract was allegedly rescinded by her on the ground of fraud, she appeals from an order granting motion for [814]*814summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Braetiee, and dismissing the complaint. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. In our opinion the proof submitted by appellant was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the conclusiveness of the documentary evidence relied upon by respondents, since she alleged facts tending to show that the execution of the contract by her was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations made by respondents as to its contents which, if true, would vitiate the entire contract, including the “merger” clause contained therein. (Wiesenthal v. Krane, 226 App. Div. 82; Muller v. Rosenblath, 157 App. Div. 513; Bridger v. Goldsmith, 143 H. Y. 424; Jackson v. State of New York, 210 App. Div. 115.) Holán, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover moneys paid by appellant on a contract for the purchase of unimproved real property, which contract was allegedly rescinded by her on the ground of fraud, she appeals from an order granting motion for [814]*814summary judgment pursuant to rule 113 of the Rules of Civil Braetiee, and dismissing the complaint. Order reversed on the law and the facts, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied, without costs. In our opinion the proof submitted by appellant was sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to the conclusiveness of the documentary evidence relied upon by respondents, since she alleged facts tending to show that the execution of the contract by her was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations made by respondents as to its contents which, if true, would vitiate the entire contract, including the “merger” clause contained therein. (Wiesenthal v. Krane, 226 App. Div. 82; Muller v. Rosenblath, 157 App. Div. 513; Bridger v. Goldsmith, 143 H. Y. 424; Jackson v. State of New York, 210 App. Div. 115.) Holán, P. J., Johnston, Adel, Wenzel and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D. 813, 113 N.Y.S.2d 504, 1952 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laczko-v-bear-ridge-lake-corp-nyappdiv-1952.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack