March 14, 2024 Court Decisions

March 14, 2024 Robert Abruzzese, Courthouse Editor

Second Department Appellate Division on Monroe Place.
Photo: Rob Abruzzese/Brooklyn Eagle

Brooklyn Property Buyer’s Fraud Claim Denied by Appellate Division

The Appellate Division, Second Department affirmed the dismissal of a lawsuit by 98 Gates Avenue Corp. against Leon A. Bryan, Jr., concerning allegations of fraud and breach of contract in a property sale. The case, overseen by Supreme Court Judge Debra Silber in Kings County, centered on the plaintiff’s accusation that Bryan falsely claimed to sell a 50 percent interest in a Brooklyn property, asserting he was the sole heir of his deceased father’s estate, whereas he actually owned only a 25 percent interest, as demonstrated by a pre-existing will.

The legal debate focused on whether Bryan’s representation constituted fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment, particularly regarding the will’s existence, which was publicly recorded and could have been verified by the plaintiff. The appellate panel, comprised of Hon. Colleen Duffy, Hon. Linda Christopher, Hon. Lillian Wan and Hon. Carl Landicino, supported the initial ruling, stating that the plaintiff’s trust in Bryan’s statements was unjustifiable due to the public access to the will. The court also referenced the principle of caveat emptor in real estate dealings, explaining that the merger doctrine prevents breach of contract claims from surviving post-sale, highlighting the necessity for buyers to conduct thorough due diligence and not solely depend on sellers’ disclosures when such information is available for independent verification.

Safety Missteps Keep Construction Firm in Legal Battle

The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court has affirmed a decision by the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning a personal injury lawsuit. The case involved plaintiff Salvatore Samperi and defendant Northeast Interior Specialists, LLC, among others. Judge Devin Cohen initially presided over the case, where Samperi alleged he was injured in November 2016 by a swinging gate at a Brooklyn construction site owned by Site 5 DSA Owner, LLC. Northeast, responsible for installing perimeter fencing and gates, had appealed the Supreme Court’s decision not to dismiss the lawsuit’s claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

The appellate panel, consisting of Hon. Angela Iannacci, Hon. William Ford, Hon. Helen Voutsinas, and Hon. Lourdes Ventura, concluded that Northeast did not conclusively prove it did not create the hazardous condition leading to Samperi’s injury. Specifically, Northeast could not demonstrate its non-involvement in the installation of the gate or absence of control over the work practices causing the incident.

Islamic Mahr Agreement Scrutinized in NY Divorce Court Ruling

The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court has affirmed a decision by the Supreme Court, Kings County, regarding a divorce and ancillary relief action brought by Nada Almountaser against Dahan Abdo. The core of the appeal focused on the lower court’s denial of Abdo’s motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims for equitable distribution, maintenance, and counsel fees, as detailed in an order dated June 14, 2021, by Justice Eric I. Prus.

At issue was the interpretation and legal weight of a Mahr agreement, a common element in marriages under Islamic law, which stipulates a sum payable by the husband to the wife upon divorce. Abdo argued that this agreement addressed all financial aspects of the divorce, including equitable distribution, maintenance, and counsel fees. However, discrepancies between the parties’ translations of the marriage license and the Mahr agreement’s terms raised significant questions, particularly regarding the agreement’s coverage of the contested financial issues.

The appellate court, comprising Hon. Angela Iannacci, Hon. Paul Wooten, Hon. Helen Voutsinas, and Hon. Lillian Wan, concluded that Abdo failed to prove the Mahr agreement conclusively resolved the financial disputes or that it was free from issues of unconscionability. More importantly, the court noted that neither party’s translation of the Mahr agreement.