Meyerhoeffer v. Haviland Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meyerhoeffer v. Haviland Realty Corp.

43 A.D.3d 888, 841 N.Y.S.2d 661

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 43 A.D.3d 888 (Meyerhoeffer v. Haviland Realty Corp.) 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

Meyerhoeffer v. Haviland Realty Corp., 43 A.D.3d 888, 841 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered February 16, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants owed them a fiduciary duty which they breached, engaged in fraud, or made a negligent representation (see J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky, 8 NY3d 144 [889]*889[2007]; Heaven v McGowan, 40 AD3d 583 [2007]). Thus, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Miller, J.E, Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered February 16, 2006, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether the defendants owed them a fiduciary duty which they breached, engaged in fraud, or made a negligent representation (see J.A.O. Acquisition Corp. v Stavitsky, 8 NY3d 144 [889]*889[2007]; Heaven v McGowan, 40 AD3d 583 [2007]). Thus, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was properly granted. Miller, J.E, Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.3d 888, 841 N.Y.S.2d 661, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meyerhoeffer-v-haviland-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack