Opinion
2014-04-17
PRINCES POINT LLC, etc., Plaintiff–Appellant, v. AKRF ENGINEERING, P.C., Defendant–Respondent, Muss Development L.L.C., et al., Defendants.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York (Todd S. Anten of counsel), for appellant. Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York (Eddy Salcedo and Elizabeth D. Schrero of counsel), for respondent.
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York (Todd S. Anten of counsel), for appellant.Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York (Eddy Salcedo and Elizabeth D. Schrero of counsel), for respondent.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered November 28, 2012, which granted defendant AKRF Engineering, P.C.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
In this action by plaintiff, a prospective buyer of real property that underwent environmental remediation performed by defendant engineering firm for the seller several years before plaintiff became a potential buyer, the complaint alleges, inter alia, causes of action for negligent misrepresentation and fraud. The cause of action for negligent misrepresentation was properly dismissed since the underlying relationship between the parties is neither “one of contract” nor one that is “so close as to be the functional equivalent of contractual privity” ( see Ossining Union Free School Dist. v. Anderson, 73 N.Y.2d 417, 419, 424, 541 N.Y.S.2d 335, 539 N.E.2d 91 [1989] ). The documents upon which plaintiff relies were prepared by defendant solely for the benefit of the seller and there is no evidence that defendant intended plaintiff to rely on the information ( see Sykes v. RFD Third Ave. 1 Assoc., LLC, 15 N.Y.3d 370, 912 N.Y.S.2d 172, 938 N.E.2d 325 [2010] ). Additionally, as we held on a prior appeal, the contract for sale precluded plaintiff from relying on anything other than its own investigation and inspections of the property (110 A.D.3d 564, 973 N.Y.S.2d 201 [1st Dept.2013] ). Accordingly, plaintiff cannot claim reasonable reliance on any alleged misrepresentations.
Because plaintiff's reliance, if any, was unreasonable, its claim for fraud was also properly dismissed ( see Duane Thomas LLC v. 62 Thomas Partners, LLC, 300 A.D.2d 52, 751 N.Y.S.2d 441 [1st Dept.2002],lv. denied100 N.Y.2d 513, 767 N.Y.S.2d 394, 799 N.E.2d 617 [2003] ). RENWICK, J.P., MOSKOWITZ, DeGRASSE, MANZANET–DANIELS, FEINMAN, JJ., concur.