Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank

85 A.D.3d 435, 924 N.Y.S.2d 264

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 7, 2011·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered on or about February 5, 2010, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. fraudulently misrepresented that their home would be classified as a two-family instead of a one-family home for mortgage purposes. That claim is refuted by the terms set forth in a mortgage commitment letter signed by plaintiff Randall S. Newman on the date of plaintiffs’ closing. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are not viable because they are based on the premise that plaintiffs detrimentally relied upon fraudulently inflated appraisals of the home. Appraisals are not actionable because they are matters of opinion (see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 65 AD3d 448, 450 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 173 [2011]; Stuart v Tomasino, 148 AD2d 370, 372 [1989]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (O. Peter Sherwood, J.), entered on or about February 5, 2010, which granted defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (1) and (7), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs allege that defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. fraudulently misrepresented that their home would be classified as a two-family instead of a one-family home for mortgage purposes. That claim is refuted by the terms set forth in a mortgage commitment letter signed by plaintiff Randall S. Newman on the date of plaintiffs’ closing. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims are not viable because they are based on the premise that plaintiffs detrimentally relied upon fraudulently inflated appraisals of the home. Appraisals are not actionable because they are matters of opinion (see Mandarin Trading Ltd. v Wildenstein, 65 AD3d 448, 450 [2009], affd 16 NY3d 173 [2011]; Stuart v Tomasino, 148 AD2d 370, 372 [1989]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Acosta, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.

Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank, 85 A.D.3d 435, 924 N.Y.S.2d 264 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

85 A.D.3d 435 (Newman v. Wells Fargo Bank) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related