Opinion
November 9, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.).
The pleadings allege that defendants misrepresented that a tenant intended to purchase her apartment; that such sale would "break the ice" causing other tenants to purchase shares allocated to their apartments; and that the misrepresentation induced plaintiff to enter into a settlement agreement. These allegations do not suffice to state a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation ( Chimento Co. v Banco Popular, 208 A.D.2d 385). Assuming the falsity of the statement concerning the intended purchase by the tenant, as we must on this CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion, plaintiff was unjustified in relying upon representations concerning the future intent to act by third parties, i.e., possible purchases by other tenants of the building. Knowledge of their actual intent was not exclusively within defendants' control and could otherwise be ascertained by plaintiff, as the sponsor of the cooperative conversion ( 198 Ave. B Assocs. v Bee Corp., 155 A.D.2d 273, 274-275).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.