From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Goodman v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 18, 1960
11 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Summary

In Goodman v Title Guarantee Trust Co, 206 N.Y.S.2d 32; 11 App. Div. 2d 1003 (1960), in a case where a potential buyer of plaintiff's property ordered an abstract from defendant abstracter and was deterred from buying because the abstract falsely showed weakness and where the abstracter "had knowledge of the terms of the contract and knew the purpose to which the report would be put", the Court allowed an action in fraud.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Polgar

Opinion

October 18, 1960


Order, entered May 4, 1959, as denies defendant's motion to dismiss the first cause of action in the complaint, unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellant, and the motion to dismiss the first cause of action in the complaint pursuant to subdivision 4 of rule 106 of the Rules of Civil Practice, granted, with $10 costs, with leave, however, in the exercise of discretion, to plaintiffs to serve an amended complaint within 20 days after service upon them of a copy of the order entered herein, with notice of entry. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages sustained by them as a result of the defendant title company's negligence in the issuance of an incorrect title report — said report having been issued to a prospective buyer of plaintiff's property under contract to purchase. By reason of the defendant's declaration as to the noninsurability of an easement the purchaser elected to rescind the contract and the plaintiffs allegedly sustained damage for which they now seek a recovery. The first cause of action, relying as it does upon the negligence of the title company is insufficient, there being no privity between the parties ( Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, 255 N.Y. 170). However, if the issuance of the report occurred through negligence so reckless as to justify a finding that the defendant had no knowledge of or genuine belief in its accuracy the defendant would be guilty of fraud ( Ultramares Corp. v. Touche, supra). The plaintiffs plead that the defendant had knowledge of the terms of the contract and knew the purpose to which its report would be put. Consequently, it should have known that the report being adverse would probably frustrate the sale causing damage to the plaintiffs. Having been informed of the purpose of the report and knowing that damage would accrue to specific individuals in the event that the report was incorrect, the defendant should be held liable to such individuals, the plaintiffs here, for the consequences of the issuance of such report in a manner that could be deemed to be fraudulent. However, such cause of action must be pleaded in fraud.

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and Eager, JJ.


Summaries of

Goodman v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Oct 18, 1960
11 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

In Goodman v Title Guarantee Trust Co, 206 N.Y.S.2d 32; 11 App. Div. 2d 1003 (1960), in a case where a potential buyer of plaintiff's property ordered an abstract from defendant abstracter and was deterred from buying because the abstract falsely showed weakness and where the abstracter "had knowledge of the terms of the contract and knew the purpose to which the report would be put", the Court allowed an action in fraud.

Summary of this case from Williams v. Polgar
Case details for

Goodman v. Title Guarantee and Trust Company

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL M. GOODMAN et al., Respondents, v. TITLE GUARANTEE AND TRUST…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Oct 18, 1960

Citations

11 A.D.2d 1003 (N.Y. App. Div. 1960)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Polgar

Next came Ultramares v Touche, 255 N.Y. 170; 174 N.E. 441; 74 ALR 1139 (1931) where then Judge Cardozo…

Guildhall Ins. Co., Ltd. v. Silberman

Courts have relied on the Ultramares privity requirement in non-accountant contexts. See e.g. Chemical…