Raines v. Sira Properties, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Raines v. Sira Properties, Inc.

286 A.D. 853, 141 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4347

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

DecidedJune 6, 1955

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 286 A.D. 853 (Raines v. Sira Properties, 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

Raines v. Sira Properties, Inc., 286 A.D. 853, 141 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4347 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a vendee of a dwelling house to recover damages for fraud and breach of the contract of sale, defendants appeal from so much of an order as denies in part their motion to modify plaintiff’s notice of examination of defendants before trial. Order modified by striking out of item 11, which item is set forth in the second ordering paragraph thereof, the words “ as an entirely new building and”. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Item 11 relates to the matter of damages for the fraud alleged in the first cause of action, that is, fraudulent representation that the house was being built of entirely new materials, and concealment of the fact that part of the building was a pre-existing structure. The applicable rule of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the sale. (Reno v. Bull, 226 N. Y. 546, 553; Reiman Constr. Corp. v. Sanlca Realty Corp., 227 App. Div. 51.) Under the circumstances it is not necessary and material in the prosecution of plaintiff’s case to inquire into what the value of the premises would have been had the house been an entirely new structure. Wenzel, Acting P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a vendee of a dwelling house to recover damages for fraud and breach of the contract of sale, defendants appeal from so much of an order as denies in part their motion to modify plaintiff’s notice of examination of defendants before trial. Order modified by striking out of item 11, which item is set forth in the second ordering paragraph thereof, the words “ as an entirely new building and”. As so modified, order, insofar as appealed from, affirmed, without costs. Item 11 relates to the matter of damages for the fraud alleged in the first cause of action, that is, fraudulent representation that the house was being built of entirely new materials, and concealment of the fact that part of the building was a pre-existing structure. The applicable rule of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time of the sale. (Reno v. Bull, 226 N. Y. 546, 553; Reiman Constr. Corp. v. Sanlca Realty Corp., 227 App. Div. 51.) Under the circumstances it is not necessary and material in the prosecution of plaintiff’s case to inquire into what the value of the premises would have been had the house been an entirely new structure. Wenzel, Acting P. J., MacCrate, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

286 A.D. 853, 141 N.Y.S.2d 337, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4347, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/raines-v-sira-properties-inc-nyappdiv-1955.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack