Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
74 New York opinions name it 6 courts 1914–2026 15 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by New York courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Jablonski v. Rapaljegreen2 sentences2026"To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller's agents thwarted the plaintiff's efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the [*3] doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Jablonski v Rapalje , 14 AD3d 484, 485 ; see Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky , 160 AD3d 994 , 996). 2024In the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor ( see Hecker v Paschke , 133 AD3d 713, 716 ). "'New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no liability on a seller for failing to disclose information regarding the premises when the parties deal at arm's length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes active concealment'" ( Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky , 160 AD3d 994 , 996, quoting Simone v Homecheck Real Estate Servs., Inc. , 42 AD3d 518, 520 ). "'If however, | 14 | 26 |
Hecker v. Paschkegreen2 sentences2026Vig Props., LLC v Rahimzada , 213 AD3d 871, 872 [citations omitted]; see Gordon v Connie Profaci Realty, LLC , 231 AD3d 712 , 713-714). "[I]n the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Hecker v Paschke , 133 AD3d 713, 716 ; see 98 Gates Ave. 2026Here, the complaint failed to adequately allege facts that would support a finding that the seller and the Real Estate defendants thwarted the plaintiff's efforts to satisfy the plaintiff's obligations under the doctrine of caveat emptor ( see Gordon v Connie Profaci Realty, LLC , 231 AD3d at 714; see also Hecker v Paschke , 133 AD3d at 717 ). | 6 | 10 |
Daly v. Kochanowiczgreen2 sentences2019"To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller's agents thwarted the plaintiff's efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Jablonski v Rapalje , 14 AD3d at 485 ; see Daly v Kochanowicz , 67 AD3d at 92 ). 2019The buyer has the duty to satisfy himself as to the quality of his bargain pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, which in New York still applies to real estate transactions ( see Daly v Kochanowicz , 67 AD3d 78 [2009]; Glazer v LoPreste , 278 AD2d 198 [2000]; London v Courduff , 141 AD2d 803 [1988]). | 6 | 8 |
Klafehn v. Morrisongreen2 sentences2023"False representation in a property condition disclosure statement mandated by Real Property Law § 462 (2) may constitute active concealment in the context of fraudulent nondisclosure . . . , [but] to maintain such a cause of action, the buyer[ ] must show, in effect, that the seller thwarted the buyer['s] efforts to fulfill the buyer['s] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Sample , 94 AD3d at 1415 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Klafehn , 75 AD3d at 810 ). 2017While false representation in a disclosure statement may constitute active concealment in the context of fraudulent nondisclosure . . . , to maintain such a cause of action, the buyer must show, in effect, that the seller thwarted the buyer’s efforts to fulfill the buyer’s responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” (Klafehn v Morrison, 75 AD3d 808, 810 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). | 5 | 8 |
Perez-Faringer v. Heilmangreen2 sentences2023"To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that [*2]the seller or the seller's agents thwarted the plaintiff's efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Jablonski v Rapalje , 14 AD3d 484, 485 ; see Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky , 160 AD3d at 996; Perez-Faringer v Heilman , 95 AD3d 853, 854 ). 2018"To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller's agents thwarted the plaintiff's efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d 484, 485 ; see Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d 853, 854 ). | 4 | 8 |
Matos v. Crimminsgreen2 sentences2014“Mere silence on the part of the seller, without some affirmative act of deception, is not actionable as fraud” (Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d 853, 854 [2012]; see Matos v Crimmins, 40 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2007]). “ ‘To maintain *786 a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiffs efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor’ ” (Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d at 854 , quoting Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d at 485 ). 2013“Mere silence on the part of the seller, without some affirmative act of deception, is not actionable as fraud” (Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d 853, 854 [2012]; see Matos v Crimmins, 40 AD3d 1053, 1054 [2007]). “ ‘To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiffs efforts to fulfill his responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” (Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d at 854 , quoting Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d at 485 ). | 4 | 6 |
First Nationwide Bank v. 965 Amsterdam, Inc.green2 sentences2010Moreover, under the doctrine of caveat emptor, plaintiff is presumed to have ascertained that the premises were suitable for its business purposes (see First Nationwide Bank v 965 Amsterdam, 212 AD2d 469, 472 [1995]) and, thus, to have been familiar with the type of food sold by FTS, warranting dismissal of its claim for injunctive relief (see L'Art de Jewel Ltd. v Hudson Sheraton Corp., LLC, 46 AD3d 418, 420 [2007]). 1999Co. v Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, 80 NY2d 377, 384 ).” We went on to observe that, under the doctrine of caveat emptor, it was incumbent upon the “debt- or to make an independent analysis of the suitability of the property for its purpose” (First Nationwide Bank v 965 Amsterdam, supra, at 472). | 4 | 4 |
Leahy v. Leahygreen2 sentences2019The buyer has the duty to satisfy himself as to the quality of his bargain pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, which in New York still applies to real estate transactions ( see Daly v Kochanowicz , 67 AD3d 78 [2009]; Glazer v LoPreste , 278 AD2d 198 [2000]; London v Courduff , 141 AD2d 803 [1988]). 2010Recovery for active concealment requires a showing that the seller thwarted the plaintiffs efforts to fulfill the responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor (see Daly v Kochanowicz, 67 AD3d 78, 92 [2009]; London v Courduff, 141 AD2d 803 [1988]). | 3 | 9 |
Platzman v. Morrisgreen2 sentences2021"To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment in the context of a fraudulent nondisclosure, the plaintiffs must show, in effect, that the seller thwarted the plaintiffs' effort to fulfill their responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Platzman v Morris , 283 AD2d at 562 ; see Simone v Homecheck Real Estate Servs., Inc. , 42 AD3d 518, 520 ; Jablonski v Rapalje , 14 AD3d at 485 ). 2015However, in the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor. “ ‘New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment’ ” (Daly v Kochanowicz, 67 AD3d at 91 , quoting Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d 484, 485 [2005]; see Platzman v Morris, 283 AD2d 561, 562 [20 | 3 | 7 |
People v. Sparrockgreen2 sentences2026Vig Props., LLC v Rahimzada , 213 AD3d 871, 872 [citations omitted]; see Gordon v Connie Profaci Realty, LLC , 231 AD3d 712 , 713-714). "[I]n the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Hecker v Paschke , 133 AD3d 713, 716 ; see 98 Gates Ave. 2025Vig Props., LLC v Rahimzada , 213 AD3d 871, 872 [citations omitted]; see Gordon v Connie Profaci Realty, LLC , 231 AD3d 712, 713-714). "[I]n the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor. | 3 | 3 |
Bethka v. Jensengreen2 sentences2014“If however, some conduct (i.e., more than mere silence) on the part of the seller rises to the level of active concealment, a seller may have a duty to disclose information concerning the property” (Daly v Kochanowicz, 67 AD3d at 91-92 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d at 485 ; Bethka v Jensen, 250 AD2d 887, 888 [1998]). “ ‘To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiffs efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doct 2014“If however, some conduct (i.e., more than mere silence) on the part of the seller rises to the level of active concealment, a seller may have a duty to disclose information concerning the property” (Daly v Kochanowicz, 67 AD3d at 91-92 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d at 485 ; Bethka v Jensen, 250 AD2d 887, 888 [1998]). “ ‘To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiffs efforts to fulfill his [or her] responsibilities fixed by the doct | 3 | 3 |
Clearmont Property, LLC v. Eisnergreen2 sentences2012Moreover, since the recorded deeds were matters of public record, not exclusively within the knowledge of the Paines and their attorney Danziger, the failure to disclose that the Paines had acquired title by two separate deeds, thereby subdividing Lot No. 8, did not constitute active concealment, and is not actionable as a fraud (see Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d at 854 ; Stollsteimer v Kohler, 77 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2010]; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052, 1056 [2009]; Rozen v 7 Calf Cr, LLC, 52 AD3d at 593; F.A.S.A. 2012Moreover, since the recorded deeds were matters of public record, not exclusively within the knowledge of the Paines and their attorney Danziger, the failure to disclose that the Paines had acquired title by two separate deeds, thereby subdividing Lot No. 8, did not constitute active concealment, and is not actionable as a fraud (see Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d at 854 ; Stollsteimer v Kohler, 77 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2010]; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052, 1056 [2009]; Rozen v 7 Calf Cr, LLC, 52 AD3d at 593; F.A.S.A. | 3 | 3 |
Rozen v. 7 Calf Creek, LLCgreen2 sentences2012Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as we must on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634 [1976]; Margolin v IM Kapco, Inc., 89 AD3d at 691 ), we conclude that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud on the theory that the defendants actively concealed that alterations to the premises had been made illegally by, inter alia, proffering the allegedly forged letter, an 2011Partnership, 12 NY3d 236, 245 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Rozen v 7 Calf Cr., LLC, 52 AD3d 590, 593 [2008]; Matos v Crimmins, 40 AD3d 1053, 1055 [2007]; Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d 484, 485 [2005]). | 3 | 3 |
Simone v. Homecheck Real Estate Services, Inc.green2 sentences2024In the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor ( see Hecker v Paschke , 133 AD3d 713, 716 ). "'New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no liability on a seller for failing to disclose information regarding the premises when the parties deal at arm's length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes active concealment'" ( Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky , 160 AD3d 994 , 996, quoting Simone v Homecheck Real Estate Servs., Inc. , 42 AD3d 518, 520 ). "'If however, 2023In the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor ( see Hecker v Paschke , 133 AD3d 713, 716 ). "'New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no liability on a seller for failing to disclose information regarding the premises when the parties deal at arm's length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller which constitutes active concealment'" ( Razdolskaya v Lyubarsky , 160 AD3d 994 , 996, quoting Simone v Homecheck Real Estate Servs., Inc. , 42 AD3d 518, 520 ). "'If however, | 2 | 6 |
Zuckerman v. City of New Yorkgreen2 sentences2013Here, although defendant met his initial burden on that part of the cross motion with respect to the fraud cause of action by submitting evidence that he did not knowingly fail to disclose any defects in the property (see generally Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]), plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact (see generally id.). 2008Since, in opposition to the motion, the plaintiffs failed to submit any evidence showing that Husbands or his agents “thwarted [their] efforts to fulfill [their] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” (Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d 484, 485 [2005]; see Platzman v Morris, 283 AD2d 561, 562 [2001]), they failed to raise any triable issue of fact precluding the granting of summary judgment to Husbands (see Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]; Friends of Animals v Associated Fur Mfrs., 46 NY2d 1065, 1067 [1979]). | 2 | 4 |
Laxer v. Edelmangreen2 sentences2024Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, however, these allegations were insufficient under the circumstances to establish that the defendants thwarted his efforts to satisfy his obligations under the doctrine of caveat emptor ( see Ader v Guzman , 135 AD3d 668, 670 ; Laxer v Edelman , 75 AD3d at 585-586 ). 2010“To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment, the plaintiff must show, in effect, that the seller or the seller’s agents thwarted the plaintiffs efforts to fulfill [its] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” (Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d at 485 ; see Laxer v Edelman, 75 AD3d 584, 585 [2010]; Commander Terms., LLC v Commander Oil Corp., 71 AD3d 623 [2010]; Daly v Kochanowicz, 67 AD3d at 92 ). | 2 | 3 |
Margolin v. IM Kapco, Inc.green2 sentences2015“To maintain a cause of action to recover damages for active concealment in the context of a fraudulent nondisclosure, the buyer must show, in effect, that the seller thwarted the buyer’s efforts to fulfill the buyer’s responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” (Simone v Homecheck Real Estate Servs., Inc., 42 AD3d at 520 ; see Margolin v IM Kapco, Inc., 89 AD3d at 691 ). 2012For concealment to be actionable as fraud, the plaintiffs must show that the defendants “thwarted” the plaintiffs’ efforts to fulfill their responsibilities imposed by the doctrine of caveat emptor (Margolin v IM Kapco, Inc., 89 AD3d at 691 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Beach 104 St. | 2 | 3 |
Gizzi v. Hallgreen2 sentences2012As there is no claim (or proof) of active concealment, these claims are barred by the doctrine of caveat emptor (Gizzi, 300 AD2d at 881 ). 2011The doctrine of caveat emptor will, as a general rule, govern an arm’s length transaction (see Pettis v Haag, 84 AD3d 1553, 1554 [2011]; Klafehn v Morrison, 75 AD3d 808, 810 [2010]; Meyers v Rosen, 69 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2010]; Stoian v Reed, 66 AD3d 1278, 1279 [2009]; Boyle v McGlynn, 28 AD3d 994, 995 [2006]), unless it can be shown that the seller actively concealed material and critical information from the buyer at the time the parties entered into their contract (see Stoian v Reed, 66 AD3d at 1279 ; Anderson v Meador, 56 AD3d 1030 , 1034 [2008]; Boyle v McGlynn, 28 AD3d at 995 ; Gizzi v Hall | 2 | 3 |
Fager v. Board of Educationgreen2 sentences2023"False representation in a property condition disclosure statement mandated by Real Property Law § 462 (2) may constitute active concealment in the context of fraudulent nondisclosure . . . , [but] to maintain such a cause of action, the buyer[ ] must show, in effect, that the seller thwarted the buyer['s] efforts to fulfill the buyer['s] responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Sample , 94 AD3d at 1415 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Klafehn , 75 AD3d at 810 ). 2021"False representation in a property condition disclosure statement mandated by Real Property Law § 462 (2) may constitute active concealment in the context of fraudulent nondisclosure . . . , [but] to maintain such a cause of action, the buyer must show, in effect, that the seller thwarted the buyer's efforts to fulfill the buyer's responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor" ( Mikulski v Battaglia , 112 AD3d 1355, 1356-1357 [4th Dept 2013] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Gallagher v Ruzzine , 147 AD3d 1456 , 1458 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 919 [2017]; Sample v Yoke | 2 | 2 |
Homeside Development Corp. v. Dassa Brill LLCgreen2 sentences2013Corp. v Dassa Brill LLC, 27 AD3d 258, 259 [2006]; cf. Matos v Crimmins, 40 AD3d 1053, 1055 [2007]). 2013Corp. v Dassa Brill LLC, 27 AD3d 258, 259 [2006]; cf. Matos v Crimmins, 40 AD3d 1053, 1055 [2007]). | 2 | 2 |
Stollsteimer v. Kohlergreen2 sentences2012Moreover, since the recorded deeds were matters of public record, not exclusively within the knowledge of the Paines and their attorney Danziger, the failure to disclose that the Paines had acquired title by two separate deeds, thereby subdividing Lot No. 8, did not constitute active concealment, and is not actionable as a fraud (see Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d at 854 ; Stollsteimer v Kohler, 77 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2010]; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052, 1056 [2009]; Rozen v 7 Calf Cr, LLC, 52 AD3d at 593; F.A.S.A. 2012Moreover, since the recorded deeds were matters of public record, not exclusively within the knowledge of the Paines and their attorney Danziger, the failure to disclose that the Paines had acquired title by two separate deeds, thereby subdividing Lot No. 8, did not constitute active concealment, and is not actionable as a fraud (see Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d at 854 ; Stollsteimer v Kohler, 77 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2010]; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052, 1056 [2009]; Rozen v 7 Calf Cr, LLC, 52 AD3d at 593; F.A.S.A. | 2 | 2 |
Tabickman v. Batchelder Street Condominiums By the Bay, LLCgreen2 sentences2012Moreover, since the recorded deeds were matters of public record, not exclusively within the knowledge of the Paines and their attorney Danziger, the failure to disclose that the Paines had acquired title by two separate deeds, thereby subdividing Lot No. 8, did not constitute active concealment, and is not actionable as a fraud (see Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d at 854 ; Stollsteimer v Kohler, 77 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2010]; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052, 1056 [2009]; Rozen v 7 Calf Cr, LLC, 52 AD3d at 593; F.A.S.A. 2012Moreover, since the recorded deeds were matters of public record, not exclusively within the knowledge of the Paines and their attorney Danziger, the failure to disclose that the Paines had acquired title by two separate deeds, thereby subdividing Lot No. 8, did not constitute active concealment, and is not actionable as a fraud (see Perez-Faringer v Heilman, 95 AD3d at 854 ; Stollsteimer v Kohler, 77 AD3d 1259, 1260 [2010]; Clearmont Prop., LLC v Eisner, 58 AD3d 1052, 1056 [2009]; Rozen v 7 Calf Cr, LLC, 52 AD3d at 593; F.A.S.A. | 2 | 2 |
| Stoian v. Reedgreen | 2 | 2 |
Meyers v. Rosengreen2 sentences2011The doctrine of caveat emptor will, as a general rule, govern an arm’s length transaction (see Pettis v Haag, 84 AD3d 1553, 1554 [2011]; Klafehn v Morrison, 75 AD3d 808, 810 [2010]; Meyers v Rosen, 69 AD3d 1095, 1096 [2010]; Stoian v Reed, 66 AD3d 1278, 1279 [2009]; Boyle v McGlynn, 28 AD3d 994, 995 [2006]), unless it can be shown that the seller actively concealed material and critical information from the buyer at the time the parties entered into their contract (see Stoian v Reed, 66 AD3d at 1279 ; Anderson v Meador, 56 AD3d 1030 , 1034 [2008]; Boyle v McGlynn, 28 AD3d at 995 ; Gizzi v Hall 2010While false representation in a disclosure statement may constitute active concealment in the context of fraudulent nondisclosure (see Anderson v Meador, 56 AD3d 1030 , 1035 [2008]; Simone v Homecheck Real Estate Servs., Inc., 42 AD3d 518, 520-521 [2007]), to maintain such a cause of action, “the buyer must show, in effect, that the seller thwarted the buyer’s efforts to fulfill the buyer’s responsibilities fixed by the doctrine of caveat emptor” (Simone v Homecheck Real Estate Servs., Inc., 42 AD3d at 520 ; see Meyers v Rosen, 69 AD3d at 1099 ). | 2 | 2 |
| Kerusa Co. v. W10Z/515 Real Estate Ltd.green | 2 | 2 |
Glazer v. LoPrestegreen2 sentences2019The buyer has the duty to satisfy himself as to the quality of his bargain pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, which in New York still applies to real estate transactions ( see Daly v Kochanowicz , 67 AD3d 78 [2009]; Glazer v LoPreste , 278 AD2d 198 [2000]; London v Courduff , 141 AD2d 803 [1988]). 2015However, in the context of real estate transactions, a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation must be analyzed within the doctrine of caveat emptor. “ ‘New York adheres to the doctrine of caveat emptor and imposes no duty on the seller or the seller’s agent to disclose any information concerning the premises when the parties deal at arm’s length, unless there is some conduct on the part of the seller or the seller’s agent which constitutes active concealment’ ” (Daly v Kochanowicz, 67 AD3d at 91 , quoting Jablonski v Rapalje, 14 AD3d 484, 485 [2005]; see Platzman v Morris, 283 AD2d 561, 562 [20 | 1 | 4 |
Schottland v. Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLCgreen2 sentences2025Vig Props., LLC v Rahimzada , 213 AD3d 873; Schottland v Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC , 107 AD3d 684, 686; Glazer v LoPreste , 278 AD2d 198, 199). 2014Here, Glickenhaus had no duty to disclose any information regarding the premises under the doctrine of caveat emptor (see Schottland v Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC, 107 AD3d 684 [2013]; Rojas v Paine, 101 AD3d 843 [2012]). | 1 | 3 |
Leon v. Martinezgreen2 sentences2023Here, accepting the facts alleged in the amended complaint as true, and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference ( see CPLR 3211[a][7]; Leon v Martinez , 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 ), the amended complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud on the theory that the Balaban defendants actively concealed extensive water damage to the property. 2012Accepting the facts alleged in the complaint as true and according the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, as we must on a motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) (see Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83, 87-88 [1994]; Rovello v Orofino Realty Co., 40 NY2d 633, 634 [1976]; Margolin v IM Kapco, Inc., 89 AD3d at 691 ), we conclude that the complaint sufficiently states a cause of action to recover damages for fraud on the theory that the defendants actively concealed that alterations to the premises had been made illegally by, inter alia, proffering the allegedly forged letter, an | 1 | 3 |
| Caceci v. Di Canio Construction Corp.green | 1 | 1 |
| Henderson v. City of New Yorkgreen | 1 | 1 |
| DDJ Management, LLC v. Rhone Group LLCgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Legum v. Russogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ader v. Guzmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| MIKULSKI, JOHN F. v. BATTAGLIA, RUSSELL M.green | 1 | 1 |
| Risk Control Assoc., Inc. v. Maloof, Lebowitz, Connahan & Oleske, P.C.green | 1 | 1 |
| Gallagher v. Ruzzinegreen | 1 | 1 |
| McPherson v. Husbandsgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Uzzle v. Nunzie Court Homeowners Ass'ngreen | 1 | 1 |
| Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in New York. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Stambovsky v. Ackley
green
2 sentences1999Further, plaintiffs bare allegation that defendants knew of a latent defect in the conveyed premises is insufficient to make out a prima facie claim for fraud based on active concealment (cf., Stambovsky v Ackley, 169 AD2d 254 ); the necessary allegation that defendants affirmatively thwarted plaintiff purchaser’s performance of its obligation, pursuant to the doctrine of caveat emptor, diligently to inspect the premises for defects, is completely absent from the complaint (see, London v Courduff, 141 AD2d 803 , lv dismissed 73 NY2d 809 ). 1997The IAS Court properly applied the doctrine of caveat emptor (see, Stambovsky v Ackley, 169 AD2d 254, 257 ; East 15360 Corp. v Provident Loan Socy., 177 AD2d 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. | 4 | 1995–1999 |
Rojas v. Paine
green
2 sentences2014Here, Glickenhaus had no duty to disclose any information regarding the premises under the doctrine of caveat emptor (see Schottland v Brown Harris Stevens Brooklyn, LLC, 107 AD3d 684 [2013]; Rojas v Paine, 101 AD3d 843 [2012]). 2013Furthermore, since the documentary evidence submitted by those parties in support of their motions demonstrated that the easement was recorded and a matter of public record, the Netzer defendants and the Netzers’ agents established, as a matter of law, that they did not actively conceal the easement from the plaintiffs, and that the plaintiffs were not thwarted in their efforts to fulfill their responsibilities imposed by the doctrine of caveat emptor (see Rojas v Paine, 101 AD3d 843 [2012]; Home-side Dev. | 3 | 2013–2014 |
Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris
green
2 sentences2023Here, the Supreme Court correctly determined that the causes of action sounding in fraud were barred, inter alia, by the specific terms of the parties' contract of sale ( see Danann Realty Corp. v Harris , 5 NY2d at 320-321 ; Comora v Franklin , 171 AD3d 851 , 853; 114 W. 14 Realty LLC v Brandman , 147 AD3d 703, 703-704 ; Kim v Il Yeon Kwon , 144 AD3d 754, 756 ). 2019The presence of disclaimers in a written agreement may preclude a claim of common-law fraud by rendering any resulting reliance unjustified ( see People v Credit Suisse Sec. [USA] LLC , 31 NY3d 622, 644 ; Danann Realty Corp. v Harris , 5 NY2d 317 ). | 2 | 2019–2023 |
Haberman v. Greenspan
green
2 sentences2019However, plaintiff's claim is based on an active concealment of a known defect, which is an exception to the doctrines of merger and caveat emptor ( see 17 E. 80th Realty Corp. v 68th Assoc. , 173 AD2d 245 [1991] [dummy ventilation system constructed by seller]; Haberman v Greenspan , 82 Misc 2d 263 [Sup Ct, Richmond County 1975] [foundation cracks covered by seller]; see also McMullen v Propester , 13 Misc 3d 1232 [A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52093[U] [Sup Ct, Yates County 2006]). 1988The case of Haberman v Greenspan ( 82 Misc 2d 263 ), upon which the plaintiffs rely, is inapposite. | 2 | 1988–2019 |
| First Nationwide Bank v. Pegasus Agency, Inc. green | 2 | 2007–2008 |
| Prudential Insurance v. Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood green | 2 | 1999–1999 |
| Schooley v. Mannion green | 1 | 2026–2026 |
| Guoba v. Sportsman Props., Inc. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Richardson v. United Funding, Inc. green | 1 | 2024–2024 |
| Kim v. Il Yeon Kwon green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| 114 West 14 Realty LLC v. Brandman neutral | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| 1810 E & J Restaurant Corp. v. Red & Blue Parrot, Inc. green | 1 | 2023–2023 |
| Mo v. Rosen green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| People v. Credit Suisse Sec. green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| 17 E. 80th Realty Corp. v. 68th Associates green | 1 | 2019–2019 |
| Commander Terminals, LLC v. Commander Oil Corp. green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Marsh v. Hasbrouck green | 1 | 2010–2010 |
| Industrial Risk Insurers v. Ernst green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Jae Heung Yoo v. Se Kwang Kim green | 1 | 2008–2008 |
| Riddy v. HSBC USA, Inc. neutral | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Lohan v. Teja green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Venezia v. Coldwell Banker Sammis Realty green | 1 | 2007–2007 |
| Gartner v. Young-Hee Lowe green | 1 | 2005–2005 |
| People v. Asencio neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| East 15360 Corp. v. Provident Loan Society green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Staff v. Lido Dunes, Inc. green | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Spano v. Perry neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Eastman v. Britton neutral | 1 | 1980–1980 |
| Seabrook v. Commuter Housing Co. green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Harwood v. Lincoln Square Apartments Section 5, Inc. green | 1 | 1975–1975 |
| Ellis v. . Andrews green | 1 | 1961–1961 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.