Source: http://kirschenbaumesq.com/article/goldstein-v-stern-32-misc2d-779-224-nys2d-816-nysup-jan-25-1962
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 20:52:50+00:00

Document:
Herbert STERN and Margarita Stern.
provision and final topographical map of city.
even if misrepresentations were innocent.
contract provision and topographical map of city. General City Law, § 35.
Harry Roter, New York City, for defendant.
Corp., 264 App.Div. 737, 34 N.Y.S.2d 273; Yokshas v. Damcovich, 214 App.Div.
return of his deposit which was refused.
the widening of Palo Alto Avenue between 191st Street and Palermo Street * * *.
Sup., 62 N.Y.S.2d 545, affd. 272 App.Div. 826, 72 N.Y.S.2d 267, affd. 299 N.Y.
692, 87 N.E.2d 72; Tiffany Realty Co. v. Estey Construction Corp., 223 App.Div.
App.Div. 81, 38 N.Y.S. 817; see generally John Farina Inc. v. Rigas, 136 Misc.
N.Y.S.2d 945, 949-950; see also Junius Construction Corp. v. Cohen, 257 N.Y.
Supreme Court, Queens County, New York,Special Term, Part I.
Louis GOLDSTEINv.Herbert STERN and Margarita Stern.
A purchaser brought an action against the vendors to recover his down payment and expenses incurred by him in connection with a contract for the sale of realty. The purchaser made a motion for summary judgment. The Special Term, Harold J. Crawford, J., held that the purchaser was not entitled to a summary judgment merely because there was a variance of five feet between contract provision and final topographical map of city.
Restriction imposed by section of General City Law dealing with permits for building in bed of mapped streets is "encumbrance" on realty, and variance of five feet between provision of contract for sale of realty and final topographical map of city is sufficient to warrant rescinding contract. General City Law, § 35.
Purchaser is not charged with knowledge of what is actually contained in filed city map, if contract for sale of realty purports to set forth what is contained in map.
Purchaser of realty may rescind contract of purchase and sue to recover consideration paid under contract, on ground of misrepresentations by vendor, even if misrepresentations were innocent.
Purchaser was not entitled to summary judgment in action against on ground of misrepresentations, are immaterial.
Purchaser was not entitled to summary judgment in action against vendors to recover down payment andexpenses incurred by purchaser in connection with contract for sale of realty because northerly five feet of realty allegedly lay in bed of street as laid out in final topographical map of city, so that northerly five feet was allegedly subject to restricted use imposed by section of General City Law dealing with permits for building in bed of mapped streets, where there was issue of fact concerning alleged variance of five feet between contract provision and topographical map of city. General City Law, § 35.
Purchaser's motives in seeking to rescind contract for sale of realty, on ground of misrepresentations, are immaterial. **817 *780 Dreyer & Traub, Brooklyn, Samuel Kirschenbaum, Brooklyn, of counsel, for plaintiff.
In an action to recover the down payment and expenses incurred by a buyer in connection with a contract for the purchase of real property, the plaintiff moves for summary judgment.
The plaintiff contends that after the execution of the contract he ordered a title search and made inquiry concerning the status of the first mortgage referred to in the contract. He alleges that the title search revealed that the northerly ten feet, more or less, of the premises abutting **818 Palermo Avenue, also known as Palo Alto Avenue, as laid out on the Final Topographical Map of the City of New York were subject to the restricted use imposed by the provisions of section 35 of the General City Law; that the mortgage would not be satisfied until April 10, 1970, two years after the date set for expiration of the mortgage in the contract. (See Rubicon Operating Corp. v. W. A. Rutherford Corp., 264 App.Div. 737, 34 N.Y.S.2d 273; Yokshas v. Damcovich, 214 App.Div. 640, 213 N.Y.S. 68; Baucher v. Stewart, 136 App.Div. 844, 122 N.Y.S. 202; Groden v. Jacobson, 129 App.Div. 508, 114 N.Y.S. 183.) Therefore, concludes the plaintiff, he rejected the title and rescinded the contract and demanded the return of his deposit which was refused.
 In the case at bar it may be that the plaintiff would be entitled to rescind the contract if, as he alleges, there was a variance of five feet concerning the proposed street widening between the contract provision and the Final Topographical Map of the City of New York. However, there is an issue of fact concerning *782 the aforementioned variance which cannot be summarily decided. Under these circumstances, the court does not reach the issue concerning the mortgage. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment is denied.

References: § 35
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 35
 § 35
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.