Sehera Food Services Inc. v. Empire State Building Co.

74 A.D.3d 542, 903 N.Y.S.2d 364
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 10, 2010
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 74 A.D.3d 542 (Sehera Food Services Inc. v. Empire State Building Co.) 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
Sehera Food Services Inc. v. Empire State Building Co., 74 A.D.3d 542, 903 N.Y.S.2d 364 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Marcy S. Friedman, J.), entered January 22, 2010, which, inter alia, denied [543]*543plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend its complaint to add a cause of action for fraud in the inducement, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying leave to amend, since plaintiffs proposed claim of fraudulent inducement was not viable (see e.g. Thomas Crimmins Contr. Co. v City of New York, 74 NY2d 166, 170 [1989]), as it failed to allege a material misrepresentation made with the intention of inducing reliance (see Rivera v JRJ Land Prop. Corp., 27 AD3d 361, 364 [2006]). Rather, plaintiff claimed that when the subject lease was executed, individuals purchasing tickets to the Empire State Building’s observation deck walked directly past the subject premises, and that defendant failed to disclose a future plan to relocate the ticket office, diverting such traffic away from the premises. Plaintiff acknowledged that the lease contains no provision obligating defendant to direct ticket purchasers past the premises and that during lease negotiations no guarantees were made regarding the route to be followed by such purchasers. As such, plaintiffs claim is actually one for fraudulent concealment, which is also not viable, since there is no duty to disclose in a nonfiduciary, arm’s length transaction between a landlord and tenant (see Dembeck v 220 Cent. Park S., LLC, 33 AD3d 491, 492 [2006]). Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Moskowitz and Acosta, JJ.

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

Related

Clarke v. Fifth Ave. Dev. Co., LLC
211 A.D.3d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
ESRT 250 W. 57th St., L.L.C. v. 13D/West 57th LLC
2017 NY Slip Op 2390 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Bishop v. Maurer
83 A.D.3d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
74 A.D.3d 542, 903 N.Y.S.2d 364, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sehera-food-services-inc-v-empire-state-building-co-nyappdiv-2010.