You are here: / First Department

Tag Archive for: First Department

, ,

QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER PLAINTIFF HAS STANDING IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION AND WHETHER THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE WAS SERVED, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT)

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. There exist questions of fact on whether plaintiff has standing and whether the RPAPL 1304 notice was served:

The borrower raised a meritorious standing defense based on questions as to the sufficiency of the content of the conclusory lost note affidavit, which does not state that a thorough and diligent search was made based on a review of the business records or anything else, does not state that any search was made or by whom, and does nothing to indicate when approximately the note was lost … .

The borrower also raised a plausible notice defense regarding plaintiff’s service of the requisite 90-day notice under RPAPL 1304 … . AS Helios LLC v Chauhan, 2018 NY Slip Op 08565, First Dept 12-13-18

 

, ,

REMARKS ALLEGED TO BE DEFAMATORY REFLECTED THE RESULTS OF A JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AND WERE THEREFORE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO CIVIL RIGHTS LAW 74 (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determination the complaint alleging defamation causes of action against attorneys who had been interviewed about litigation involving plaintiff and Elizabeth Etling, whom the defendant attorneys represented. The court held that the remarks alleged to be defamatory were either protected descriptions of judicial determinations in the case or were otherwise not actionable. With respect to the Civil Rights Law privilege, the court wrote:

Defendants’ comment about plaintiff’s “massive spoliation” or “spoliation in droves” is protected under Civil Rights Law § 74 as a fair and true report, even if the Delaware Chancery Court did not use defendants’ exact words in its decision… . The court concluded that plaintiff had intended and attempted to destroy “a substantial amount of information,” and detailed plaintiff’s responsibility for the deletion, in violation of court order, of approximately 41,000 files from his computer. Plaintiff argues that defendants overstated the matter, because his spoliation proved largely reversible. Indeed, of the 41,000 files deleted, 1,000 were permanently destroyed. However, plaintiff did not cause the recovery of the data; rather, it occurred in spite of him. Moreover, he lied under oath about his spoliating conduct. As the court observed, an unsuccessful spoliator is still a spoliator… .

Defendants’ comment that plaintiff was “holding Elting hostage” is protected under Civil Rights Law § 74. During the interviews at issue, defendants cited the section of the post-trial decision in which the court used similar language in summarizing Elting’s position … . Defendants’ statement that “no rational person would ever want to partner with [plaintiff],” which is nearly a verbatim quotation from the court’s decision, is protected under the statute. Shawe v Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP, 2018 NY Slip Op 08550, First Dept 12-13-18

 

,

PROOF THAT DEFENDANT WAS SERVED WITH THE RPAPL 1304 NOTICE IN THIS FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the bank’s motion for summary judgment in this foreclosure action should not have been granted. The proof of service of the RPAPL 1304 notice was deemed insufficient:

Plaintiff failed to establish a presumption that it properly served defendant with RPAPL 1304 notice through proof either of actual mailing or of a standard office practice or procedure for proper addressing and mailing … . Its business operations analyst testified at the hearing on this issue that she was familiar with plaintiff’s record keeping practices and procedures. However, she did not testify either that she was familiar with plaintiff’s mailing procedures or that she was personally aware that RPAPL 1304 notices had been mailed to defendant… . Nor does the fact that some of the RPAPL 1304 notices admitted into evidence at the hearing bear a certified mail number suffice to raise the presumption of proper service … . CitiMortgage, Inc. v Moran, 2018 NY Slip Op 08435, First Dept 12-11-18

 

, ,

DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to request a jury instruction on petit larceny as a lesser included offense of robbery. The defense theory was that defendant did not use violence to take $20.00 from the victim but rather used trickery, claiming the victim had broken defendant’s liquor bottle. Defense counsel requested a jury charge on fraudulent accosting, which is not a lesser included offense of robbery:

… [P]etit larceny, which is defined as “steal[ing] property,” qualifies in the abstract as a lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree, which is defined as “forcibly steal[ing] property” … . There is no separate crime of petit larceny “by false pretenses,” and the fact that a nonforcible taking is committed by fraud does not disqualify it as a lesser included offense of robbery.

It is clear that defense counsel’s failure to seek a petit larceny charge was not strategic. The defense strategy was to concede that a nonforcible theft occurred and seek a misdemeanor conviction. There is no merit to the People’s suggestion that counsel may have had a strategic reason for requesting fraudulent accosting but not petit larceny.

We also find that counsel’s failure to request a petit larceny charge was prejudicial. There was plainly a reasonable view of the evidence to support petit larceny. Furthermore, the evidence that the theft was forcible rather than a scam was not so overwhelming as to render a request for petit larceny futile. The victims were tourists who returned to their home country and did not testify, and the sole eyewitness’s ability to establish the element of force was in question. People v Jones, 2018 NY Slip Op 08356, First Dept 12-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (CRIMINAL LAW, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE  (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSES (DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/ROBBERY (LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))/PETIT LARCENY (LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE, DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION ON THE CORRECT LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE CONSTITUTED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE, PETIT LARCENY IS A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF ROBBERY THIRD, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FIRST DEPT))

28 MONTH DELAY DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, DELAY ATTRIBUTED TO PROSECUTION, HOWEVER, WAS CRITICIZED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, over a concurring decision, determined that the 28-month delay in prosecution did not rise to the level of a denial of defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial. The concurrence agreed but took pains to note that much of the delay attributable to the prosecution was inexcusable:

While the 28—month delay was substantial, it was attributable to both the prosecution and the defense. While most adjournments were either on consent or were otherwise satisfactorily explained, the People failed to provide an adequate reason for their delay in responding to defendant’s motion to compel production of certain medical records and in producing the records. Nevertheless, the charges were very serious and, although defendant was incarcerated the entire time, he has not demonstrated how his defense was impaired by the delay. This is not a case where the delay, and in particular the portion attributable to the People, was so egregious as to warrant dismissal regardless of prejudice … . People v Desselle, 2018 NY Slip Op 08252, First Dept 12-4-18

CRIMINAL LAW (SPEEDY TRIAL, 28 MONTH DELAY DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, DELAY ATTRIBUTED TO PROSECUTION, HOWEVER, WAS CRITICIZED (FIRST DEPT))/SPEEDY TRIAL (28 MONTH DELAY DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO A SPEEDY TRIAL, DELAY ATTRIBUTED TO PROSECUTION, HOWEVER, WAS CRITICIZED (FIRST DEPT))

,

DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR MAY APPLY TO WINDOW FALLING ONTO PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT BUILDING MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined there were questions of fact whether defendant building manager was liable for the injuries to plaintiff from a window which fell out and onto his head when he attempted to close it. The doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may apply:

… [P]laintiff used the locker room to change and opened one of the windows half a foot to cool down. When he attempted to close the window, he used a “little bit more force than [he] did when [he] lifted it.” As the window closed, it reverberated a bit and then the whole window structure came out and crashed over plaintiff’s head. …

The defendant met its prima facie burden on lack of constructive notice of a dangerous condition. While it is disputed that defendant never inspected the windows since installation in 2004, it did not have an affirmative duty to conduct reasonable inspections … .

We find that an issue of fact exists as to the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, which allows for an inference of negligence to be drawn on the occurrence of an accident. The doctrine requires that a plaintiff must demonstrate that the “event is the kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence, that it was caused by an agency or instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant, and [that] it was not due to any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff” … .

Here, “common experience” dictates that a window being shut does not simply fall out absent negligence. In order to establish exclusive control, plaintiff is not required to show that defendant “had sole physical access” to the window… . Further, here remains a question of fact whether plaintiff did something to contribute to the window falling on him. Wilkins v West Harlem Group Assistance, Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08247, First Dept 12-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (RES IPSA LOQUITUR, DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR MAY APPLY TO WINDOW FALLING ONTO PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT BUILDING MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))/RES IPSA LOQUITUR (DOCTRINE OF RES IPSA LOQUITUR MAY APPLY TO WINDOW FALLING ONTO PLAINTIFF, DEFENDANT BUILDING MANAGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT))

,

ALTHOUGH THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRED THAT TIME WARNER MAINTAIN ONLY THE AREA 12 INCHES AROUND A METAL BOX COVER IN THE SIDEWALK, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TIME WARNER OR A PREDECESSOR CREATED THE DEFECT OR HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OUTSIDE THE 12 INCH AREA, SUPREME COURT REVERSED IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that defendant Time Warner’s motion for summary judgment in this sidewalk slip and fall case should not have been granted. Although the sidewalk defect was outside 12 inch area around the metal box cover in the sidewalk which the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY) require Time Warner to maintain, there were questions of fact whether Time Warner created the defect or had constructive notice of the defect:

Time Warner … has a common-law duty not to create a hazardous condition on the sidewalk … , and, further, as a special user of the public sidewalk, has a “duty to maintain the area of the special use in a reasonably safe condition”… . Additionally, constructive notice may be imputed where, as here, there is a duty under the administrative code to conduct inspections of the box covers … .

Here, the evidence, including the testimony of Time Warner’s construction manager, shows that Time Warner did not regularly inspect its box covers, as required by the regulation it relied upon … , and that, if the area had been inspected, Time Warner would have repaired the cracked sidewalk condition around the box cover and replaced the sidewalk flag, which extends to the spot where plaintiff tripped. Time Warner also submitted the affidavit of an engineer who measured the distance between plaintiff’s fall and the box cover as more than 12 inches, but did not address whether or not the metal box installed in the sidewalk created the cracked condition around the box cover that extended to the spot where plaintiff fell. Furthermore, the fact that Time Warner did not install the box cover itself has no bearing since the duty to maintain the area of the special use “runs with the land as long as it is maintained for the benefit of a special user” … . Robles v Time Warner Cable Inc., 2018 NY Slip Op 08244, First Dept 12-4-18

NEGLIGENCE (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRED THAT TIME WARNER MAINTAIN ONLY THE AREA 12 INCHES AROUND A METAL BOX COVER IN THE SIDEWALK, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TIME WARNER OR A PREDECESSOR CREATED THE DEFECT OR HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OUTSIDE THE 12 INCH AREA, SUPREME COURT REVERSED  IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SLIP AND FALL (ALTHOUGH THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRED THAT TIME WARNER MAINTAIN ONLY THE AREA 12 INCHES AROUND A METAL BOX COVER IN THE SIDEWALK, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TIME WARNER OR A PREDECESSOR CREATED THE DEFECT OR HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OUTSIDE THE 12 INCH AREA, SUPREME COURT REVERSED  IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SIDEWALKS (SLIP AND FALL, ALTHOUGH THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRED THAT TIME WARNER MAINTAIN ONLY THE AREA 12 INCHES AROUND A METAL BOX COVER IN THE SIDEWALK, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TIME WARNER OR A PREDECESSOR CREATED THE DEFECT OR HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OUTSIDE THE 12 INCH AREA, SUPREME COURT REVERSED  IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))/SPECIAL USE (SIDEWALKS, SLIP AND FALL,  ALTHOUGH THE RULES OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK REQUIRED THAT TIME WARNER MAINTAIN ONLY THE AREA 12 INCHES AROUND A METAL BOX COVER IN THE SIDEWALK, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER TIME WARNER OR A PREDECESSOR CREATED THE DEFECT OR HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE DEFECT OUTSIDE THE 12 INCH AREA, SUPREME COURT REVERSED  IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT))

NEW JERSEY FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Renwick, ordering the resentencing of defendant, determined the defendant’s prior New Jersey forged instrument conviction was not the equivalent of a New York felony and therefore could not be the basis of second felony offender status:

The first mens rea element of both New York and New Jersey’s crime of uttering a forged instrument are the same: that the defendant had knowledge that the subject instrument was forged. However, the second mens rea element of the New Jersey crime of uttering a forged instrument is broader than the second mens rea element of the New York crime of uttering a forged instrument. Because the New Jersey statute uses the disjunctive “or,” the second mens rea element of the NJ crime of uttering a forged instrument can be satisfied in two different ways: that one who utters a forged instrument must act either with the intent to defraud (purpose to defraud or injure anyone) or with the knowledge that one is facilitating a fraud. By contrast, the second mens rea element of the New York crime of uttering a forged instrument can be satisfied only one way: that the person who utters a forged instrument acted with the “intent to defraud.” Since the New Jersey statute punishes a broader range of mental states than its New York counterpart, it fails New York’s strict equivalency test … . People v Allison, 2018 NY Slip Op 08194, First Dept 11-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (NEW JERSEY FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (FIRST DEPT))/SENTENCING (NEW JERSEY FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (FIRST DEPT))/SECOND FELONY OFFENDER  (NEW JERSEY FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION WAS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF A NEW YORK FELONY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BASIS OF SECOND FELONY OFFENDER STATUS (FIRST DEPT))

,

JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department, reversing defendant’s conviction, determined the jury should have been instructed to consider a lesser included offense and an adverse inference instruction should have been given concerning photographs destroyed by the police:

The court’s first-degree robbery charge, consistent with the indictment, required the People to prove that defendant used or threatened to use a knife; it is undisputed that a finding that defendant wielded some weapon or object other than a knife would not support first-degree robbery in this case. There was a reasonable view of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to defendant, that he forcibly stole property from the victim, but did not use or threaten to use a knife in the course of doing so… . On the facts presented, the jury could have reasonably reached these findings by generally crediting the victim’s account, but finding that her testimony about seeing defendant using a knife was mistaken. Moreover, while this circumstance is not controlling, we note that the People joined in defendant’s request for submission of third-degree robbery.

… [T]the court should also have granted defendant’s request for an adverse inference charge as to surveillance photos taken in the victim’s livery cab after other photos, introduced at trial, were taken. The photos in evidence showed defendant in the back seat before he left and allegedly returned to rob the driver. The Police Department collected the photos but destroyed all but a few of them, which were introduced at trial through a detective who alleged that other members of his team selected them as the most relevant. Defendant established that the missing photos were “reasonably likely to be material” … , since they might have shown what type of weapon or object was used by the perpetrator. The record fails to support the People’s assertion that the camera could not have recorded the incident … . People v Holmes, 2018 NY Slip Op 08178, First Dept 11-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/EVIDENCE (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/JURY INSTRUCTIONS (CRIMINAL LAW, JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))/ADVERSE INFERENCE (DESTRUCTION OF PHOTOS, CRIMINAL LAW, (JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED TO CONSIDER A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE AND AN ADVERSE INFERENCE INSTRUCTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN CONCERNING SURVEILLANCE PHOTOS DESTROYED BY THE POLICE, CONVICTION REVERSED (FIRST DEPT))

, , , ,

THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).

The First Department determined the misrepresentation of the dimensions of the cooperative apartment in the listing could not be deemed incorporated by reference into the purchase agreement. The complaint was therefore properly dismissed:

… [P]laintiffs allege that defendants prepared a floor plan, which accompanied the listing for the unit at issue, that stated that the unit was “~1,966” square feet, when it was, in fact, approximately 1,495 square feet. Plaintiffs contend that the floor plan was incorporated into the offering plan by reference, and the offering plan, in turn, was incorporated into the purchase agreement. …

The doctrine of incorporation by reference “is appropriate only where the document to be incorporated is referred to and described in the instrument as issued so as to identify the referenced document beyond all reasonable doubt'”… . Here, the listing is not identified in any of the relevant purchase documents … .

Moreover, any purported representation or warranty is refuted by the clear terms of the purchase agreement, which contains a merger clause, states that no representations are being made by the sponsor, that the unit was being purchased “as is” and that the onus was on the buyer to inspect “to determine the actual dimensions” prior to purchasing  … . …

Reasonable reliance is an element of claims for fraud, aiding and abetting fraud and negligent misrepresentation… . Plaintiffs cannot as a matter of law establish reasonable reliance on a representation concerning the condition of the apartment since they had the means to ascertain the truth of the condition … . …

… [P]plaintiffs’ allegations based on purported representations made in the listing fail to set forth a viable claim under General Business Law §§ 349 or 350, as they do not fall within the type of deceptive acts, that, if permitted to continue, would have a broad impact on consumers at large … . Von Ancken v 7 E. 14 L.L.C., 2018 NY Slip Op 08097, First Dept 11-27-18

CONTRACT LAW (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE (CONTRACT LAW, (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/FRAUD (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/CONSUMER LAW (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/PURCHASE AGREEMENTS (COOPERATIVES, THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/LISTING (REAL ESTATE, THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/REAL ESTATE (LISTING, (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))/COOPERATIVES (THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS OF THE COOPERATIVE APARTMENT WERE SMALLER THAN THE DIMENSIONS DESCRIBED IN THE LISTING, THE LISTING COULD NOT BE DEEMED INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE INTO THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT, THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING BREACH OF CONTRACT, FRAUD AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES PROPERLY DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT))

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