Princes Point LLC v AKRF Eng'g, P.C.

Annotate this Case
Princes Point LLC v AKRF Eng'g, P.C. 2013 NY Slip Op 06937 Decided on October 24, 2013 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 24, 2013
Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Acosta, DeGrasse, Freedman, JJ.
10846 601849/08

[*1]Princes Point LLC, etc., Plaintiff-Appellant,

v

AKRF Engineering, P.C., et al., Defendants-Respondents, John Doe(s) partners, et al., Defendants.




Gaines & Fishler, LLP, Staten Island (Robert M. Fishler of
counsel), for appellant.
Seyfarth Shaw LLP, New York (Donald Dunn Jr., of counsel),
for AKRF Engineering, P.C., respondent.
Herrick, Feinstein LLP, New York (Scott E. Mollen of counsel),
for Allied Princes Bay Co., Allied Princes Bay Co. #2, L.P.,
Muss Development L.L.C. and Joshua Muss, respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles E. Ramos, J.), entered on or about August 2, 2013, which granted defendants Allied Princes Bay Co., Allied Princes Bay Co. #2, Muss Development L.L.C., and Joshua Muss's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against them, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

To the extent plaintiff based its claims on certain alleged misrepresentations by defendants Allied Princes Bay Co. and Allied Princes Bay Co. #2 as to property it contracted to purchase from them, the claims are precluded by this Court's determination in a prior appeal that "plaintiff accepted all defects in the property at issue and was not relying on any assurances made by defendants as to the condition of the property" (94 AD3d 588, 589 [1st Dept 2012]). [*2]

We have considered plaintiff's remaining contentions, including that it is entitled to specific performance of the contract with an abatement in the purchase price, and find them unavailing.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: OCTOBER 24, 2013

CLERK

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.