Lohan v. Teja

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lohan v. Teja

22 A.D.3d 647, 801 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedOctober 17, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 22 A.D.3d 647 (Lohan v. Teja) 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

Lohan v. Teja, 22 A.D.3d 647, 801 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated December 17, 2004, as denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined, the defendant seller failed to demonstrate his entitlement to dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, alleging that they were induced to purchase the subject premises as a result of the defendant’s active concealment of a mold infestation (see Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d 484 [2005]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries and fraud, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Jones, Jr., J.), dated December 17, 2004, as denied its motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7).

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined, the defendant seller failed to demonstrate his entitlement to dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint, alleging that they were induced to purchase the subject premises as a result of the defendant’s active concealment of a mold infestation (see Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d 484 [2005]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Covello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 A.D.3d 647, 801 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lohan-v-teja-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack