Gould v. Syracusa
Opinion of the Court
Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking to recover damages for defendants’ alleged breach of contract and fraud in connection with plaintiffs purchase of a single-family residence from defendants. Supreme Court properly denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Defendants failed to meet their initial burden of establishing as a matter of law that they did not breach the warranties in the contract of sale that the septic system was “in good working order” (see, Joseph v Creek & Pines, 217 AD2d 534, 535, lv dismissed 86 NY2d 885, lv denied 89 NY2d 804) and that the property was “in full compliance with * * * all building ordinances” (see, Davis v Weg, 104 AD2d 617, 619; Moral Six Corp. v Margold Assocs. Co., 79 AD2d 702). In addition, defendants submitted no proof that they fulfilled their contractual obligation to complete the vinyl siding prior to closing.
Defendants further failed to demonstrate their entitlement to judgment dismissing the fraud cause of action. Contrary to defendants’ contention, plaintiff does not rely upon defendants’
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.