Lejkowski v. Petrou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lejkowski v. Petrou

178 A.D.2d 465, 576 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16268

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

DecidedDecember 9, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 178 A.D.2d 465 (Lejkowski v. Petrou) 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

Lejkowski v. Petrou, 178 A.D.2d 465, 576 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16268 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

an action to set aside a transfer of an interest in real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), entered November 28, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find the plaintiff’s allegations that he relied on misrepresentations by the defendants as to the nature of the agreement and deed he was signing to be both flatly contradicted by the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants and incredible (see, Zigabarra v Falk, 143 AD2d 901; SRW Assocs. v Bellport Beach Prop. Owners, 129 AD2d 328; Roberts v Pollack, 92 AD2d 440). Moreover, given the business context of the transaction and the absence of any allegation that he was prevented from reviewing the agreement and deed, the plaintiff is presumed to have read them and cannot rely on any alleged contrary oral representations (see, Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v Jaybert Esso Serv. Sta., 30 AD2d 952; see generally, Florence v Merchants Cent. Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793). The Supreme Court thus properly dismissed the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to allege the elements of fraud (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Clearview Concrete Prods. Corp. v S. Charles Gherardi, Inc., 88 AD2d 461; Brown v Lockwood, 76 AD2d [466]*466721). Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.

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

an action to set aside a transfer of an interest in real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.), entered November 28, 1989, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We find the plaintiff’s allegations that he relied on misrepresentations by the defendants as to the nature of the agreement and deed he was signing to be both flatly contradicted by the documentary evidence submitted by the defendants and incredible (see, Zigabarra v Falk, 143 AD2d 901; SRW Assocs. v Bellport Beach Prop. Owners, 129 AD2d 328; Roberts v Pollack, 92 AD2d 440). Moreover, given the business context of the transaction and the absence of any allegation that he was prevented from reviewing the agreement and deed, the plaintiff is presumed to have read them and cannot rely on any alleged contrary oral representations (see, Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v Jaybert Esso Serv. Sta., 30 AD2d 952; see generally, Florence v Merchants Cent. Alarm Co., 51 NY2d 793). The Supreme Court thus properly dismissed the complaint for the plaintiff’s failure to allege the elements of fraud (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]; Clearview Concrete Prods. Corp. v S. Charles Gherardi, Inc., 88 AD2d 461; Brown v Lockwood, 76 AD2d [466]*466721). Harwood, J. P., Balletta, Rosenblatt and Copertino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

178 A.D.2d 465, 576 N.Y.S.2d 816, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16268, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lejkowski-v-petrou-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack