New York Fruit Auction Corp. v. City of New York

• Decision Date: 23 June 1982
• Citation: 453 N.Y.S.2d 640,439 N.E.2d 356,56 N.Y.2d 1015
• Parties: , 439 N.E.2d 356 NEW YORK FRUIT AUCTION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 640

453 N.Y.S.2d 640

56 N.Y.2d 1015, 439 N.E.2d 356

NEW YORK FRUIT AUCTION CORPORATION, Appellant, v. CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 23, 1982.

Kim J. Landsman, Barrington D. Parker, Jr., and Anthony M. Radice, New York City, for appellant.

Frederick A. O. Schwarz, Jr., Corp. Counsel (Judah Dick and Leonard Koerner, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 81 A.D.2d 159, 439 N.Y.S.2d 648, should be affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff's allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations are fatally inadequate, among other reasons, because the alleged representations, "more precatory than promissory", at best were only unenforceable misrepresentations of future intent (cf. Woodmere Academy v. Steinberg, 41 N.Y.2d 746, 752, 395 N.Y.S.2d 434, 363 N.E.2d 1169). Moreover, none of the alleged representations are included in the lease approved, as required, by the New York City Charter ( § 704, subd. ).

Finally, because the representations claimed permeated all the causes of action, including the otherwise conclusorily pleaded one based on unconscionability, the Appellate Division properly dismissed all four pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd. par. 7).

COOKE, C. J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER, JJ., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.