Savran v. Chi Jung Chiang

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Savran v. Chi Jung Chiang

234 A.D.2d 54, 650 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12292

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 54 (Savran v. Chi Jung Chiang) 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

Savran v. Chi Jung Chiang, 234 A.D.2d 54, 650 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered June 21, 1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this action to foreclose a mortgage, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendants cannot attack an agreement that they adhered to and derived benefits from without objection for four years after learning of the alleged fraud (Jaywyn Video Prods. v Servicing All Media, 179 AD2d 397, 398). We would add that defendants’ claim they were defrauded into buying a residential building that they believed to be commercial would in any event be barred by plaintiffs’ specific disclaimer of any representations with respect to the uses of the premises, and by defendants’ representation that they had inspected the property, were familiar with its condition and were purchasing it in an "as is” condition (Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317; Higgins Bros. Realty Corp. v Ortho-Medical Prods., 202 AD2d 371). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered June 21, 1995, which granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in this action to foreclose a mortgage, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendants cannot attack an agreement that they adhered to and derived benefits from without objection for four years after learning of the alleged fraud (Jaywyn Video Prods. v Servicing All Media, 179 AD2d 397, 398). We would add that defendants’ claim they were defrauded into buying a residential building that they believed to be commercial would in any event be barred by plaintiffs’ specific disclaimer of any representations with respect to the uses of the premises, and by defendants’ representation that they had inspected the property, were familiar with its condition and were purchasing it in an "as is” condition (Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317; Higgins Bros. Realty Corp. v Ortho-Medical Prods., 202 AD2d 371). Concur—Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 54, 650 N.Y.S.2d 203, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12292, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/savran-v-chi-jung-chiang-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack