McFarland v. Opera Owners, Inc.

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

Opinion

The IAS court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim because plaintiffs concededly failed to comply with express conditions 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.