Wexler v. Wexler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wexler v. Wexler

74 A.D.3d 567, 902 N.Y.S.2d 348

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

DecidedJune 15, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 74 A.D.3d 567 (Wexler v. Wexler) 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

Wexler v. Wexler, 74 A.D.3d 567, 902 N.Y.S.2d 348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira S. Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered on or about December 15, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, deemed an appeal from judgment, same court and Judicial Hearing Officer, entered January 15, 2010, dismissing the complaint (CELR 5501 [e]), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Flaintiff failed to allege fraudulent inducement in the execution of the parties’ unambiguous stipulation of settlement and release with sufficient particularity and failed to allege facts establishing that his reliance on defendant Aaron Wexler’s alleged misrepresentations was reasonable (see New York City School Constr. Auth. v Koren-DiResta Constr. Co., 249 AD2d 205, 205-206 [1998]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira S. Gammerman, J.H.O.), entered on or about December 15, 2009, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, deemed an appeal from judgment, same court and Judicial Hearing Officer, entered January 15, 2010, dismissing the complaint (CELR 5501 [e]), and, so considered, said judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Flaintiff failed to allege fraudulent inducement in the execution of the parties’ unambiguous stipulation of settlement and release with sufficient particularity and failed to allege facts establishing that his reliance on defendant Aaron Wexler’s alleged misrepresentations was reasonable (see New York City School Constr. Auth. v Koren-DiResta Constr. Co., 249 AD2d 205, 205-206 [1998]). Concur—Andrias, J.P., Saxe, Sweeny, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

74 A.D.3d 567, 902 N.Y.S.2d 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wexler-v-wexler-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack