Legal Opinion
Wittenberg v. Robinov
New York Court of Appeals
Decided March 2, 1961PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtFroessel, J.
Plaintiff’s action against defendant Eobinov for fraudulently inducing a contract for the sale of real property will not lie. Under the authority of our decision in Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris (5 N Y 2d 317; see, also, Ernst Iron Works v. Duralith Corp., 270 N. Y. 165), the alleged misrepresentations here were disclaimed with sufficient specificity— except the alleged misrepresentation as to ownership of the kitchen ranges, which could not reasonably be said to come within the ambit of “physical condition or services”. That alleged misrepresentation, however, in view of the bill of…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Ernst Iron Works, Inc. v. Duralith Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1936
- Laska v. . HarrisNew York Court of Appeals · 1915
- Waldorf v. SimpsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1897
- Flower City Plant Food Co. v. RobertsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1903
- Kip v. HowesThe Superior Court of New York City · 1869
3Cited by30 opinions
- Citibank, N. A. v. PlapingerNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
- Aetna Casualty And Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2005
- Leasco Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent v. Peter T. TaussigCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
- London v. CourduffAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Bango v. NaughtonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.