Sorenson v. Bridge Capital Corp.

• Decision Date: 06 June 2006
• Docket Number: 8702.,8701.,M-2742.
• Citation: Sorenson v. Bridge Capital Corp., 30 A.D.3d 1144, 817 N.Y.S.2d 229, 2006 NY Slip Op 4370 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
• Parties: SIGURD A. SORENSON, Appellant, v. BRIDGE CAPITAL CORP. et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

30 A.D.3d 1144

817 N.Y.S.2d 229

2006 NY Slip Op 04370

SIGURD A. SORENSON, Appellant, v. BRIDGE CAPITAL CORP. et al., Respondents.

8701.

8702.

M-2742.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.

June 6, 2006.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 3, 2005, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, granted defendants' motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the claim for fraud in the inducement and cancelled the notice of pendency, unanimously modified, on the law, the notice of pendency reinstated, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same

court, Justice and entry date, which denied a stay of cancellation of the notice of pendency, unanimously dismissed, without costs, as academic.

The merger and other clauses in the contract, whereby plaintiff, as purchaser, acknowledged no reliance on any extracontractual representations by defendant sellers with regard to plaintiff's purchase of the condominium units, bar consideration of the extrinsic evidence asserted in the complaint (Fabozzi v Coppa, 5 AD3d 722, 723-724 [2004]; McGowan v Winant Place Assoc., 270 AD2d 466 [2000]). Hence, the claim for fraud in the inducement was properly...