Wilson v. Gelarie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wilson v. Gelarie

80 A.D.2d 850, 439 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10684

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 850 (Wilson v. Gelarie) 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

Wilson v. Gelarie, 80 A.D.2d 850, 439 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10684 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for misrepresentation in connection with the sale of real property, defendants Gelarie, Goldstein, Schwartz and F & T Goldstein Realty Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 19, 1980, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. The specific disclaimer clause contained in the parties’ contract of sale precludes the purchasers from now claiming that they relied upon any of the appellants’ alleged misrepresentations (see Wittenberg v Robinov, 9 NY2d 261; Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for misrepresentation in connection with the sale of real property, defendants Gelarie, Goldstein, Schwartz and F & T Goldstein Realty Company appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated March 19, 1980, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted. The specific disclaimer clause contained in the parties’ contract of sale precludes the purchasers from now claiming that they relied upon any of the appellants’ alleged misrepresentations (see Wittenberg v Robinov, 9 NY2d 261; Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2d 317). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 850, 439 N.Y.S.2d 628, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10684, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-gelarie-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack