Case ID: ad3d_92/html/0428-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

John McFarland et al., Appellants, v Opera Owners, Inc., Respondent.
    [937 NYS2d 591]
   The IAS court properly dismissed the breach of contract claim because plaintiffs concededly failed to comply with express conditions precedent to the contract (see Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690 [1995]).

The court properly dismissed the fraud claim as barred by the merger clause, “as is” clause, and other disclaimers (see Rivietz v Wolohojian, 38 AD3d 301 [2007]). Moreover, plaintiffs’ allegations of defendant’s intent to breach the contract are insufficient to state a cause of action for fraud (see New York Univ. v Continental Ins. Co., 87 NY2d 308, 318 [1995]; Board of Mgrs. of the Chelsea 19 Condominium v Chelsea 19 Assoc., 73 AD3d 581, 582 [2010]). Concur — Mazzarelli, J.R, Friedman, Catterson, Renwick and Román, JJ.