Case ID: ny_247/html/0529-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rachel Yedlin et al., Respondents, v. Harris Rubin et al., Appellants, Impleaded with Another.
    
      Vendor and purchaser ■ — fraud—false representations • — fiduciary relations — action to rescind purchase of real property, cancel purchase-money bond and mortgage and recover cash paid on transfer.
    
    
      Yedlin v. Rubin, 219 App. Div. 694, affirmed.
    (Argued December 7, 1927;
    decided January 10, 1928.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered March 26,1927, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiffs. The action was brought to rescind the purchase by plaintiffs of certain real property, to cancel a purchase-money bond and mortgage and to recover the cash paid by them upon the conveyance of the property on the ground of fraud. The evidence shows that one of the plaintiffs, a widow who had received some life insurance on the death of her husband, consulted one of the defendants, an officer of her church in whom she had confidence, as to investment, and on his advice purchased from his son the premises in question; that a portion of the premises were untenanted at the time, but that defendants falsely represented that they were all rented and that the tenants would shortly move in; that no tenants moved in and that a few months after taking title, plaintiff being unable to meet payments due on the mortgage, the same was foreclosed and she lost everything. The Appellate Division held that there was a fiduciary relationship and that defendants knew or should have known that plaintiffs would be unable to carry the property.
    
      Robert H. Wilson and Max L. Kane for appellants.
    
      Gustave B. Garfield and Maurice V. Seligson for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Cardozo, Ch. J., Pound, Crane, Andrews, Lehman, Kellogg and O’Brien, JJ.