From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Black v. Chittenden

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 18, 1986
69 N.Y.2d 665 (N.Y. 1986)

Opinion

Decided December 18, 1986

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, Con. G. Cholakis, J.

Francis J. Roche for appellants.

Robert D. Wilcox for respondent.



MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified to reinstate the first cause of action and to dismiss the Statute of Limitations defense and, as so modified, affirmed.

The allegations contained in the first cause of action, as amplified by the supporting affidavits (see, Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 N.Y.2d 175, 182), state facts from which a jury may infer that "the defendant knowingly uttered a falsehood intending to deprive the plaintiff of a benefit and that the plaintiff was thereby deceived and damaged" and, therefore, states a cause of action in fraud (Channel Master Corp. v Aluminum Ltd. Sales, 4 N.Y.2d 403, 406-407). Contrary to the conclusion of the majority at the Appellate Division ( 121 A.D.2d 819, 821), the allegations in the fourth paragraph of the complaint that the statements "were false and were known by the defendant to be false when made by [defendant]" are sufficient to plead defendant's knowledge of falsity (Sabo v Delman, 3 N.Y.2d 155, 159). Furthermore, none of the agreements annexed to defendant's motion papers contain any disclaimer of reliance on oral representations such as was involved in Citibank v Plapinger ( 66 N.Y.2d 90, rearg denied 67 N.Y.2d 647).

On their appeal to this court, plaintiffs have abandoned their second and third causes of action.

The complaint also contains "sufficient detail to clearly inform [the] defendant with respect to the incidents complained of" (Lanzi v Brooks, 43 N.Y.2d 778, 780) and, therefore, complies with the additional requirement of CPLR 3016 (b) that in an action for fraud, "the circumstances constituting the wrong shall be stated in detail." It is not necessary to satisfy this requirement that the measure of damages be pleaded, "so long as facts are alleged from which damages may properly be inferred" (A.S. Rampell, Inc. v Hyster Co., 3 N.Y.2d 369, 383; Kensington Pub. Corp. v Kable News Co., 100 A.D.2d 802). The allegations of deterioration to the bowling lanes and their need for extensive repairs satisfy this requirement.

The misrepresentation here alleged is that the lanes were in "good repair and operating condition." Like the statement held actionable in Hickey v Morrell ( 102 N.Y. 454 [that a warehouse was "fire-proof on the exterior"]), defendant's representation may reasonably be construed as a matter of "description and affirmation" (102 N.Y., at p 459) actionable in fraud as an expression of fact rather than opinion. Further, defendant's failure to inform plaintiff's representative that he had in the past employed certain stopgap maintenance procedures which shorten the life of the lanes supports the inference that he intended the representation as one of fact aimed at "divert[ing] attention and [further] inquiry" from the condition of the lanes (Gray v Richmond Bicycle Co., 167 N.Y. 348, 357). Here, as in Schumaker v Mather, 133 N.Y. 590, 594-595), therefore, the "meaning and intention of the speaker" presents a fact question for the jury.

Whether, pursuant to the rule of Schumaker v Mather (supra), the condition of the lanes was a matter "peculiarly within [defendant's] knowledge" (133 N.Y., at p 596, supra) and whether plaintiffs could have discovered the truth about them through the "exercise of ordinary intelligence" (ibid.) likewise present questions of fact mandating the denial of defendant's summary judgment motion. As recognized by the dissenters below (121 A.D.2d, at p 821), not only was defendant the sole shareholder and manager of the bowling alley for the seven years prior to its sale, but also he attested in the parties' noncompetition agreement to his expertise in the management of its affairs. In contrast, the individual plaintiff had no prior involvement with the corporation and no prior expertise in the bowling business, and the condition of which she now complains was, according to plaintiffs' expert, not detectable to the untrained eye at the time when the misrepresentation allegedly was made.

Furthermore, the fact that plaintiffs solicited and received assurances from defendant that the lanes were in "good repair and operating condition" can hardly be deemed so implausible as to permit the conclusion that plaintiffs' allegations are necessarily feigned (see, Millerton Agway Coop. v Briarcliff Farms, 17 N.Y.2d 57). In concluding otherwise, the Appellate Division erred in focusing on the fact that plaintiffs did not commence the action until in default (see, ibid., at p 63) and resolved credibility questions properly left for the trier of fact (compare, Curry v Mackenzie, 239 N.Y. 267, with General Inv. Co. v Interborough R.T. Co., 235 N.Y. 133).

We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

The Appellate Division, therefore, erred in affirming Special Term's order insofar as it granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiffs' first cause of action.

Finally, for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum at the Appellate Division (121 A.D.2d, at p 821), we agree that while Special Term correctly denied plaintiffs' cross motion to dismiss the defense of laches, that court erred in refusing to grant so much of the motion as seeks the dismissal of the Statute of Limitations defense.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE and HANCOCK, JR., concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order modified, with costs to plaintiffs, in accordance with the memorandum herein and, as so modified, affirmed.


Summaries of

Black v. Chittenden

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Dec 18, 1986
69 N.Y.2d 665 (N.Y. 1986)
Case details for

Black v. Chittenden

Case Details

Full title:CLAIRE S. BLACK et al., Appellants, v. RALPH CHITTENDEN, Respondent

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Dec 18, 1986

Citations

69 N.Y.2d 665 (N.Y. 1986)
511 N.Y.S.2d 833
503 N.E.2d 1370

Citing Cases

Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc. v. McGhee

(3) the plaintiff justifiably relied on the defendant's representations, and (4) the plaintiff was injured as…

Tiso v. Sasso

The role of the court is to determine if bonafide issues of fact exists, and not to resolve issues of…