Joseph v. Creek & Pines, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 03 July 1995 |
| Citation | 629 N.Y.S.2d 75,217 A.D.2d 534 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | Harriet S. JOSEPH, et al., Appellants, v. CREEK & PINES, LTD., et al., Respondents. |
Wormser, Kiely, Galef & Jacobs, White Plains (Lawrence R. Dittelman, Lester D. Steinman and Daniel Pozin, of counsel), for appellants.
Cuddy & Feder, White Plains (Thomas R. Beirne and Erica Tukel Wax, of counsel), for respondents.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and PIZZUTO, SANTUCCI and GOLDSTEIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action to recover damages for breach of contract and fraud, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered May 7, 1993, which, inter alia, after a nonjury trial, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting the provision thereof which granted the branch of the defendants' motion which was to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action, and substituting therefor a provision denying that branch of the defendants' motion and finding for the plaintiffs on the breach of contract cause of action; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
ORDERED that the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for a calculation as to the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiffs.
The Supreme Court did not err in dismissing the fraud cause of action. The evidence indicates that the plaintiffs did not rely on the representations made by the defendants concerning the septic systems but relied only upon the warranties in the contract. Therefore, the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud (see, Ruse v. Inta-Boro Two-Way Radio Taxi Assocs., 166 A.D.2d 641, 561 N.Y.S.2d 70).
However, contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court, the evidence establishes that the defendants breached the warranty in the contract of sale under which they represented that the septic systems were to be in "good working order" at the time of closing. The evidence clearly establishes that there were septic systems which malfunctioned and caused a contamination of the ground and the ground water.
The defendants argue that the representation regarding the condition of the septic systems was not intended to survive the closing. However, it is well-settled that when interpreting a contract, the court should arrive at a construction which will give fair meaning to all of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re American Home Mortg. Holdings, Inc.
...Co., 9 N.Y.2d 16, 210 N.Y.S.2d 516, 172 N.E.2d 280, 282 (1961)). 104. Plaintiffs Answer, p. 15. 105. Joseph v. Creek & Pines, 217 A.D.2d 534, 535, 629 N.Y.S.2d 75 (2d Dep't 1995). 106. In re CRIIMI MAE, Inc., 251 B.R. 796, 801 (Bankr.D.Md.2000) and Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Steams & C......
-
In re Delta Financial Corp., Bankruptcy No. 07-11880 (CSS).
...test to determine New York law applied to insurance coverage dispute). Thus, New York law governs. 17. Joseph v. Creek & Pines, Ltd., 217 A.D.2d 534, 629 N.Y.S.2d 75 (N.Y.App.Div. 1995). 18. Fetner v. Fetner, 293 A.D.2d 645, 741 N.Y.S.2d 256, 258 (N.Y.App.Div.2002) (internal citations omitt......
-
In re American Home Mortgage, Case No. 07-11047 (CSS) Jointly Administered (Bankr.Del. 5/23/2008)
... ... 2007) ( quoting Pinker v. Roche Holdings Ltd., 292 F.3d 361, 374 n. 7 (3d Cir. 2002)) ... 36. Ballentine v. U.S., ... 1961)) ... 104. Plaintiff's Answer, p. 15 ... 105. Joseph v. Creek & Pines, 217 A.D.2d 534, 535 (2d Dep't 1995) ... 106. In re ... ...
-
In re: American Home Mortgage, Holdings, Inc., Case No. 07-11047 (CSS) Jointly Administered (D. Del. 5/23/2008), Case No. 07-11047 (CSS) Jointly Administered.
...Sales Corp. v. Manufacturers Trust Co., 172 N.E.2d 280, 282 (N.Y. 1961)). 104. Plaintiff's Answer, p. 15. 105. Joseph v. Creek & Pines, 217 A.D.2d 534, 535 (2d Dep't 1995). 106. In re Criimi Mae, Inc., 251 B.R. 796, 801 (Bankr. D. Md. 2000) and Granite Partners, L.P. v. Bear, Stearns & Co.,......