Opinion
April 30, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Huttner, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The complaint adequately alleges fraud to the extent that it charges, inter alia, that the defendant knowingly misrepresented the identity of a document with the intent to deceive the plaintiff and to thereby induce the plaintiff to go forward with the closing of title with regard to the plaintiff's purchase of certain real property from the defendant (see, Deerfield Communications Corp. v. Chesebrough-Ponds, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 954). Under the circumstances the defendant's reliance on the merger doctrine is misplaced. That doctrine, which provides that prior agreements merge in the deed, is not applicable to claims based on fraud (Snyder v. Potter, 134 A.D.2d 664, 665; see also, Caramante v. Barton, 114 A.D.2d 680; 7 Williston, Contracts § 926, at 784-799 [3d ed 1961]). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Rosenblatt and Miller, JJ., concur.