New York Fruit Auction Corp. v. City of New York
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- Repucci v. Lake Champagne Campground, Inc. (District Court, D. Vermont 2002)
- Koagel v. Ryan Homes, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- JDF Realty, Inc. v. Sartiano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Dacosta v. Trade-Winds EnvironMental Restoration, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Non-Linear Trading Co. v. Braddis Associates, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Tarzia v. Brookhaven National Laboratory (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Ambassador Factors v. Kandel & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
- People v. Smith (Mich. 1991)
- Glenn Partition, Inc. v. Trustees of Columbia University (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Intercontinental Credit Corp. Division of Pan American Trade Development Corp. v. Roth (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Banner Industries, Inc. v. Key B.H. Associates (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- Brintec Corp. v. Akzo N. V. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
- McHam v. Whitney (New York Supreme Court 1989)
- Olivetti Partners C.V. v. O'Dowd (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Budoff v. Jenkins (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Glassman v. Catli (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Plaintiff’s allegations of fraudulent misrepresentations are fatally inadequate, among other reasons, because the alleged representations, “more precatory than promissory”, at best were only unenforceable misrepresentations
Finally, because the representations claimed permeated all the causes of action, including the otherwise conclusorily pleaded one based on unconscionability, the Appellate Division properly dismissed all four pursuant to CPLR 3211 (subd [a], par 7).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.