You are here: / / Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor
,

Sellers Had No Duty to Disclose Recorded Easement—Caveat Emptor

In affirming Supreme Court’s ruling that the defendants had no duty to disclose a recorded easement to the buyers pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, the Second Department wrote:

“New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment” …. “Mere silence on the part of the seller, without some affirmative act of deception, is not actionable as fraud”…. ” To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiff’s efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor”…. “Where the facts represented are not matters peculiarly within the party’s knowledge, and the other party has the means available to him of knowing, by the exercise of ordinary intelligence, the truth or the real quality of the subject of the representation, he must make use of those means, or he will not be heard to complain that he was induced to enter into the transaction by misrepresentations”…. Schottland v Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC, 2013 NY Slip Op 03982, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

You might also like
Court’s Imposition of Restitution at Sentencing Required Reversal Because Restitution Was Not Part of Plea Agreement
ALLEGED CONTRACTS FOR THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY DID NOT SATISFY THE STATUTE OF FRAUDS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE WET SUBSTANCE ON THE STEP WHERE SHE ALLEGEDLY FELL WAS NOT AN INABILITY TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF THE FALL (SECOND DEPT).
CONVICTIONS OF INCLUSORY CONCURRENT COUNTS OF AGGRAVATED UNLICENSED OPERATION OF A MOTOR VEHICLE FIRST DEGREE VACATED (SECOND DEPT).
PROBABLE CAUSE FOR SEARCH OF DEFENDANT’S VEHICLE UNDER THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION WAS PROVIDED BY THE ODOR AND OBSERVATION OF MARIJUANA; SEIZURE OF A TRANSPARENT BAG OF PILLS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY THE PLAIN VIEW EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT IMMEDIATELY APPARENT THE PILLS WERE CONTRABAND AND THERE WAS NO MARIJUANA IN THE BAG (SECOND DEPT).
Mother Not Given Sufficient Opportunity to Substantiate Her Income
CORPORATE OFFICER COULD BE PERSONALLY LIABLE FOR CONVERSION AND FRAUD, CAUSES OF ACTION AGAINST THE OFFICER PERSONALLY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS SHIELDED BY THE CORPORATE STRUCTURE (SECOND DEPT).
Title Insurance Company Insures Only Whether a Property Has Legal Access to a Street, Not Whether Physical Access to the Street Is Possible

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Only Sellers’, Not Buyers’, Agent Can Be Liable for Failure to Disclose... Analysis Where Two or More Insurance Companies Insure the Same Risk and Ins...