Opinion
November 18, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).
The IAS Court properly applied the doctrine of caveat emptor (see, Stambovsky v. Ackley, 169 A.D.2d 254, 257; East 15360 Corp. v. Provident Loan Socy., 177 A.D.2d 280, 281) in holding that defendant sellers did not commit an actionable fraud in representing that the apartments in question were registered with the Division of Housing and Community Renewal as exempt from rent stabilization while not also revealing that the basis for the exemption was owner occupancy. The representation that was made was sufficient to place plaintiffs on inquiry notice with respect to the status of the apartments, but plaintiffs do not allege that they made any inquiries. The LAS Court also correctly held that defendant appraiser's report, commissioned after plaintiffs contracted to purchase the property, could not have caused plaintiffs' loss.
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.