Opinion
9186 Index 162291/15
05-02-2019
GUICHA INC., et al., Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. A.M.A.A. REALTY CORP., et al., Defendants–Respondents, Chamun Koo, et al., Defendants.
Solomon Zabrowsky, New York, for appellants. Sperber Denenberg & Kahan, P.C., New York (Jacqueline Handel–Harbour of counsel), for respondents.
Solomon Zabrowsky, New York, for appellants.
Sperber Denenberg & Kahan, P.C., New York (Jacqueline Handel–Harbour of counsel), for respondents.
Sweeny, J.P., Gische, Webber, Kahn, Moulton, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (John J. Kelley, J.), entered March 16, 2018, which granted defendants-respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the claims asserted against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Respondents met their prima facie burden on summary judgment of submitting evidence demonstrating their entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the causes of action asserted against them, and plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact ( Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 [1980] ).
There is no evidence supporting any elements of plaintiffs' fraud claims (see Pasternack v. Laboratory Corp. of Am. Holdings, 27 N.Y.3d 817, 827, 37 N.Y.S.3d 750, 59 N.E.3d 485 [2016] ; Eurycleia Partners, LP v. Seward & Kissel, LLP, 12 N.Y.3d 553, 559, 883 N.Y.S.2d 147, 910 N.E.2d 976 [2009] ). In particular, plaintiffs cannot establish reliance on respondents' alleged misrepresentations or any collusion concerning a lease entered into with defendant AMAA, as a matter of law, since they successfully argued in a prior proceeding brought by AMAA to collect rent that the lease was invalid, and thus are judicially estopped from taking a contrary position (see Becerril v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 110 A.D.3d 517, 519, 973 N.Y.S.2d 586 [1st Dept. 2013], lv denied 23 N.Y.3d 905, 992 N.Y.S.2d 794, 16 N.E.3d 1274 [2014] ).
Plaintiffs failed to raise an issue of fact concerning any injury resulting from any alleged notarial misconduct (see Mars v. Grant, 36 A.D.3d 561, 562, 830 N.Y.S.2d 32 [1st Dept. 2007], lv denied 9 N.Y.3d 810, 844 N.Y.S.2d 786, 876 N.E.2d 515 [2007] ; Amodei v. New York State Chiropractic Assn., 160 A.D.2d 279, 282, 553 N.Y.S.2d 713 [1st Dept. 1990], affd 77 N.Y.2d 890, 568 N.Y.S.2d 909, 571 N.E.2d 79 [1991], 77 N.Y.2d 891, 568 N.Y.S.2d 900, 571 N.E.2d 70 [1991] ; Executive Law § 135 ).
We have considered plaintiffs' remaining contentions and find them unavailing.