Opinion
May 16, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order entered March 18, 1992, is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order entered November 25, 1992, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order entered November 25, 1992, is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,
Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed their claims of fraudulent misrepresentation against the respondents inasmuch as the appellants failed to reasonably investigate the truth of the alleged representations made by the respondents despite the fact that they could have reviewed the building department records pertaining to the subject premises (see, e.g., Most v. Monti, 91 A.D.2d 606; see generally, Matter of Mehta v. Mehta, 196 A.D.2d 842; Curran, Cooney, Penney v. Young Koomans, 183 A.D.2d 742). Moreover, the appellants' alleged reliance on the purported fraudulent misrepresentations was not reasonable. The appellants were notified by their engineer that the basement offices at the premises did not comply with applicable code requirements because the ceilings were not of the requisite height. Hence, the appellants cannot now assert that they reasonably relied on the respondents' alleged representations that the entire premises complied with the applicable code provisions (see, e.g., 113-14 Owners Corp. v. Gertz, 123 A.D.2d 850; see generally, Noufrios v Murat, 193 A.D.2d 791).
We have considered the appellants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Joy, JJ., concur.