Legal Opinion
O&M Gourmet Foods, Inc. v. Marino's 184 Foods, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 7, 1996PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
*341The claims in Action No. 1 sounding in fraud were properly dismissed as they were not pleaded with sufficient specificity (see, CPLR 3016 [b]). Furthermore, plaintiffs in Action No. 1 had expressly disclaimed reliance upon the types of misrepresentations alleged in the complaint under the parties’ contract of sale of the restaurant (see, Citibank v Plapinger, 66 NY2d 90, 95; Mahn Real Estate Corp. v Shapolsky, 178 AD2d 383, 385) and, in light of the two week observation period they enjoyed under the contract, enabling them to monitor the business they were buying, the Mayer plaintiffs’ claims…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Citibank, N. A. v. PlapingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Interman Industrial Products, Ltd. v. R. S. M. Electron Power, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1975
- Seaman-Andwall Corp. v. Wright Machine Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1968
- Seaman-Andwall Corp. v. Wright MacH. Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1971
- Mahn Real Estate Corp. v. ShapolskyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- HSH Nordbank AG v. UBS AGAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012