In an October 18, 2010 decision by Justice Bransten, the Court granted Defendant summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The parties’ dispute arose out of a contract for the sale of a condominium loft. Plaintiff refused to close on sale and brought claims for rescission and fraud, seeking the return of his deposit, claiming that he was misled as to the ability to build a sleeping loft in the apartment.
Plaintiff and defendant both moved for summary judgment in their favor. The court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding (i) the contract did not contain any misrepresentation regarding the ability to build a sleeping loft, (ii) the contract contained a “general merger clause” (stating that the contract contained the parties’ entire agreement) and (iii) the contract contained a specific merger clause attesting to the fact that Plaintiff had not relied upon anyone representations other than those contained in the contract and Plaintiff reviewed the condominium’s by-laws and regulations and the contract of sale was “as-is.” The Court also found that, even if the contract did not contain those provisions, Plaintiff failed to adequately plead a fraud cause of action because he did not particularize any allegedly fraudulent statements made by defendant.
Casano v New 19 W. LLC et al, Sup Ct New York County, October 18, 2010, Bransten J, index No. 650220/10