Preview:

C.V. Co. LLC v Ban Realty Corp. (2009 NY Slip Op 52305(U))
[*1]


Decided on November 9, 2009
Supreme Court, Nassau County

009063/09
Reena Gulati, Esq. Attorney for Plaintiff 3000 Marcus Avenue, Ste. 1E5 Lake Success, NY 11042 Lauren J. Wachtler Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp, LLP
C.V. Co. LLC v Ban Realty Corp. (2009 NY Slip Op 52305(U))
Attorneys for Defendants
12 East 49th Street
30th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Daniel R. Palmieri, J.
This motion by the plaintiff C.V. Company, LLC for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1), (7) and 3212 granting summary judgment in its favor on its claims and dismissing the defendants' counterclaims is granted.
This cross-motion by the defendants for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(d), CPLR 3212(f) denying the plaintiffs' motion or adjourning it so as to allow discovery to be conducted is denied.
In this action, the plaintiff C.V. Company seeks to recover on a mortgage note and a guaranty that the defendants executed in its favor when they purchased its property. Via their counterclaims, the defendants seek to recover, inter alia, for fraud in the inducement. They allege that the plaintiff knowingly sold them property which it knew was contaminated, and that it in fact misled them regarding its condition.
In their Answer, the defendants have advanced eight affirmative defenses: failure to state a claim (First and Second Affirmative Defenses); estoppel (Third Affirmative Defense); Statute of Limitations (Fourth Affirmative Defense); laches and unclean hands (Fifth Affirmative Defense); breach of contract (Sixth Affirmative Defense); breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing (Seventh Affirmative Defense); and, that the guaranty is ineffective to bind the signatories (Eighth Affirmative Defense). [*2]
The defendants have also advanced five counterclaims. As their First Counterclaim, they allege that the plaintiff breached their contract by failing to convey property free from contamination. As their Second Counterclaim, they allege that the plaintiff negligently conveyed property that it knew or should have known was contaminated. For their Third Counterclaim, they allege that the plaintiff acted fraudulently by knowingly misrepresenting the property's condition. The Fourth Counterclaim
C.V. Co. LLC v Ban Realty Corp. (2009 NY Slip Op 52305(U))
alleges that plaintiffs have been unjustly enriched. Finally, the Fifth Counterclaim seeks to hold the plaintiffs strictly liable pursuant to Navigation Law

Download 2009_52305.pdf

New York Law