Board of Mgrs. of Waverly Place Condominium v KMG Waverly, LLC

Board of Mgrs. of Waverly Place Condominium v KMG Waverly, LLC 2015 NY Slip Op 05262 Decided on June 18, 2015 Appellate Division, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 18, 2015
Gonzalez, P.J., Tom, Friedman, Kapnick, JJ.
15477 147 159329/13

[*1] Board of Managers of Waverly Place Condominium, Plaintiff-Respondent,

v

KMG Waverly, LLC, et al., Defendants, BKSK Architects, LLP, et al., Defendants-Appellants.

Menaker & Herrmann LLP, New York (Paul M. Hellegers of counsel), for appellants.

Schwartz Sladkus Reich Greenberg Atlas LLP, New York (Jared E. Paioff of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey K. Oing, J.), entered on or about January 23, 2015, which, to the extent appealed from, denied the architect defendants' motion to dismiss the fraud-in-the-inducement cause of action against them, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion granted. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment dismissing the complaint against those defendants.

Plaintiff, the Board of Managers of a gut-renovated condominium located in Manhattan, alleges that the architect defendants knowingly made false statements in their written description of the property, and that their architect's certification contained false assurances as to the veracity of the description. However, the description was prepared less than two weeks after the commencement of the demolition phase of the renovation project, and the architect's certification was made approximately one month after the project began. Because the renovation was in its early stages at those points, the statements in the description were predictions of future events and, therefore, cannot sustain an action for fraud (see e.g. Dragon Inv. Co. II LLC v Shanahan, 49 AD3d 403, 403 [1st Dept 2008]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: JUNE 18, 2015

CLERK