Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
— Pitt Street, LLC, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. 85–87 Pitt Street Realty Corporation, et al., Defendants–Respondents.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Judith J. Gische, J.), entered April 6, 2010, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this dispute involving the sale of an apartment building, granted defendants' motion to dismiss the causes of action alleging fraudulent inducement, fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
The contract contained a merger clause setting forth that plaintiff accepted the building “as is” after having had an opportunity to inspect the premises. The provision specifically disclaimed reliance on any representations as to the physical condition of the building. Thus, the merger clause extinguished any claims arising from defendants' alleged misrepresentations that the building did not have a bedbug problem (see Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris, 5 N.Y.2d 317 [1959]; 1166 EJM LLC v Marsh & McLennan Cos., Inc., 50 AD3d 424 [2008] ). A bug infestation is not a matter peculiarly within a seller's knowledge that requires disclosure by the seller. An infestation could be discovered with reasonable diligence and an inspection of the premises (see McPherson v. Husbands, 54 AD3d 735 [2008]; Long v. Fitzgerald, 240 A.D.2d 971, 973 [1997] ).
We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions, including that the causes of action should not have been dismissed as against the individual defendants, and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 4723 85 87
Decided: April 07, 2011
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)