Opinion
December 4, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.).
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly determined that, notwithstanding the existence of a special relationship which supported the plaintiff's cause of action to recover damages for negligent misrepresentation (see, Heard v City of New York, 82 N.Y.2d 66, 74; Prudential Ins. Co. v Dewey, Ballatine, Bushby, Palmer Wood, 80 N.Y.2d 377, 382; White v Guarente, 43 N.Y.2d 356, 362-363; Glanzer v Shepard, 233 N.Y. 236), the plaintiff's reliance on the misrepresentation was not justified or reasonable (see, Heard v City of New York, supra, at 74-75; Hutchins v Utica Mut. Ins. Co., 107 A.D.2d 871, 872-873; compare, Banque Arabe et Internationale D'Investissement v Maryland Natl. Bank, 57 F.3d 146).
We have considered the plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.