From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mayer v. Rabinowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 1985
114 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

October 7, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kunzeman, J.).


Order affirmed, with costs.

The disclaimer clause in the contract of sale between the parties, which states in pertinent part that no written or oral representations were made by the sellers or by any third party with respect to the income of the property sold, is sufficiently specific to negate plaintiffs' allegation of reliance and precludes parol evidence to the effect that the sellers ratified a written statement of the parties' business broker as to the approximate gross weekly income of the property (Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 N.Y.2d 317; Wittenberg v Robinov, 9 N.Y.2d 261; Galvatron Indus. Corp. v Greenberg, 96 A.D.2d 881; Barnes v Gould, 83 A.D.2d 900, affd 55 N.Y.2d 943). As plaintiffs are precluded from asserting fraud on the part of the sellers, Murray Rabinowitz and Harry Rabinowitz, in this regard, the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them was properly granted. Lazer, J.P., O'Connor, Niehoff and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Mayer v. Rabinowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 7, 1985
114 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Mayer v. Rabinowitz

Case Details

Full title:MARK MAYER et al., Appellants, v. MURRAY RABINOWITZ et al., Respondents…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 7, 1985

Citations

114 A.D.2d 357 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Weiss v. Shapolsky

Here, the contract contained merger clauses which provided that the purchaser was not relying on any…

Risbano v. 3rd & 60th Associates

We now affirm. The Supreme Court properly found that a specific disclaimer in the parties' agreement defeated…