Liberty Fabrics, Inc. v. Corporate Properties Associates 5

223 A.D.2d 457, 636 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 501
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 23, 1996
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 223 A.D.2d 457 (Liberty Fabrics, Inc. v. Corporate Properties Associates 5) 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
Liberty Fabrics, Inc. v. Corporate Properties Associates 5, 223 A.D.2d 457, 636 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 501 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered March 24, 1995, which granted petitioner’s motion pursuant to CPLR 7601 to confirm the 1994 appraisal of five commercial properties, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The IAS Court applied the proper standard in determining the motion since CPLR 7601 provides an agreement to submit a valuation question to an independent appraiser may be enforced by a court in the same manner as would an arbitration agreement under CPLR article 75. An appraisal determination should be upheld in the absence of fraud, bias or bad faith (see, Rice v Ritz Assocs., 88 AD2d 513, affd 58 NY2d 923). Here, respondents’ claim that petitioner fraudulently misrepresented the condition of the properties to the appraiser, causing the latter to significantly undervalue the property, is without merit, given that the appraiser itself examined each of the five properties prior to its determination. Moreover, the representations allegedly made were, with one exception, true, even if misunderstood by respondents; the other alleged representation, that one of the buildings was in "poor” condition, even if inaccurate, was insufficient to support a claim of fraud, especially in light óf the on-site inspection. Thus, respondents were not entitled to either discovery or a hearing pursuant to CPLR 409 (see, Matter of Bahar v Schwartzreich, 204 AD2d 441). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Related

Koffler v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.
2025 NY Slip Op 03711 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Zarour v. Pac. Indem. Co.
Second Circuit, 2024
Matter of 101 W. 23 Owner I LLC v. 715-723 Sixth Ave. Owners Corp.
2019 NY Slip Op 5501 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Matter of Johnson Kirchner Holdings, LLC v. Galvano
2017 NY Slip Op 3952 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. BFPRU I, LLC
230 F. Supp. 3d 253 (S.D. New York, 2017)
Kroboth v. Brent
262 A.D.2d 837 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Sauer v. Xerox Corp.
17 F. Supp. 2d 193 (W.D. New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
223 A.D.2d 457, 636 N.Y.S.2d 781, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 501, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/liberty-fabrics-inc-v-corporate-properties-associates-5-nyappdiv-1996.