Princes Point v. AKRF Engineering

110 A.D.3d 564, 973 N.Y.S.2d 201

This text of 110 A.D.3d 564 (Princes Point v. AKRF Engineering) 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
Princes Point v. AKRF Engineering, 110 A.D.3d 564, 973 N.Y.S.2d 201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2013, which granted defendants Allied Princes Bay Co., Allied Princes Bay Co. #2, Muss Development L.L.C., and Joshua Muss’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

To the extent plaintiff based its claims on certain alleged misrepresentations by defendants Allied Princes Bay Co. and Allied Princes Bay Co. #2 as to property it contracted to purchase from them, the claims are precluded by this Court’s determination in a prior appeal that “plaintiff accepted all defects in the premises and was not relying on any assurances made by defendants as to the condition of the property” (Princes Point, LLC v AKRF Eng’g, P.C., 94 AD3d 588, 588-589 [1st Dept 2012]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions, including that it is entitled to specific performance of the contract with an abatement in the purchase price, and find them unavailing. Concur — Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

Princes Point, LLC v. AKRF Engineering, P.C.
94 A.D.3d 588 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
110 A.D.3d 564, 973 N.Y.S.2d 201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/princes-point-v-akrf-engineering-nyappdiv-2013.