McFarland v. Opera Owners, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McFarland v. Opera Owners, Inc.

92 A.D.3d 428, 937 N.Y.2d 591

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2012

StatusPublished

This text of 92 A.D.3d 428 (McFarland v. Opera Owners, Inc.) 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

McFarland v. Opera Owners, Inc., 92 A.D.3d 428, 937 N.Y.2d 591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

The IAS court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim because plaintiffs concededly failed to comply with express [429]*429conditions precedent to the contract (see Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690 [1995]).

The court properly dismissed the fraud claim as barred by the merger clause, “as is” clause, and other disclaimers (see Rivietz v Wolohojian, 38 AD3d 301 [2007]). Moreover, plaintiffs’ allegations of defendant’s intent to breach the contract are insufficient to state a cause of action for fraud (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 318 [1995]; Board of Mgrs. of the Chelsea 19 Condominium v Chelsea 19 Assoc., 73 AD3d 581, 582 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

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

The IAS court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim because plaintiffs concededly failed to comply with express [429]*429conditions precedent to the contract (see Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690 [1995]).

The court properly dismissed the fraud claim as barred by the merger clause, “as is” clause, and other disclaimers (see Rivietz v Wolohojian, 38 AD3d 301 [2007]). Moreover, plaintiffs’ allegations of defendant’s intent to breach the contract are insufficient to state a cause of action for fraud (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 318 [1995]; Board of Mgrs. of the Chelsea 19 Condominium v Chelsea 19 Assoc., 73 AD3d 581, 582 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

92 A.D.3d 428, 937 N.Y.2d 591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcfarland-v-opera-owners-inc-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack