Opinion
May 26, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.).
Documentary evidence, namely, the letter of understanding, conclusively shows that plaintiffs alleged reliance upon any promise by defendants to pay for their services was unjustified (CPLR 3211 [a] [1]; see, Four Seasons Hotels v. Vinnik, 127 A.D.2d 310, 318; Linnane v. Lanzellotto, 202 A.D.2d 400). The parties expressly agreed that defendants obligation to assign a 10% interest in the building was conditioned upon consummation of the "transactions contemplated hereunder * * * to [defendants] reasonable satisfaction". Thus, it is clear that plaintiffs, sophisticated real estate developers, assumed the risk of defendants dissatisfaction with their services, precluding recovery on the theory of fraud ( cf., Trick v. County of Westchester, 216 A.D.2d 555). Nor, under the facts alleged, can there be a recovery under plaintiffs alternative theory of quantum meruit, since, as a matter of law, the letter of understanding, contrary to plaintiffs characterization, is an enforceable contract that governs their right, if any, to payment ( see, Baitman Assocs. v. H M Intl. Transp., 171 A.D.2d 479, 483-484).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.