George v. Lumbrazo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs’ entire complaint seeking damages from the alleged fraudulent sale of a house by defendants Lumbrazos. The "as is” and general merger clauses in the purchase contract are not specific *1051disclaimers, and do not preclude an examination into whether there was fraud in the inducement of the contract (see, Chopp v Welbourne & Purdy Agency, 135 AD2d 958; Caramante v Barton, 114 AD2d 680). The presence of such…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Kuelling v. Roderick Lean Manufacturing Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1905
- Stambovsky v. AckleyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Angerosa v. White Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1936
- Angerosa v. White CompanyNew York Court of Appeals · 1937
- Caramante v. BartonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Dornberger v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1997
- Couch v. SchmidtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Schooley v. MannionAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Christiano v. ChiarenzaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- Richardson v. United Funding, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.