Stambovsky v. Ackley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The case law in this jurisdiction dealing with the duty of a vendor of real property to disclose information to the buyer is distinguishable from the matter under review. The most salient distinction is that existing cases invariably deal with the physical condition of the premises (e.g., London v. Courduff, supra [use as a landfill]; Perin v. Mardine Realty Co., 5 A.D.2d 685 [, 168 N.Y.S.2d 647 (2d Dep’t 1957)], aff'd 6 N.Y.2d 920 [, 190 N.Y.S.2d 995 , 161 N.E.2d 210 (1959)] [sewer line crossing adjoining property without owner’s consent]), defects in title (e.g., Sands v. Kissane, 282 App.Div. 140 [, 121 N.Y.S.2d 634 (3d Dep’t 1953) ] [remainderman]), liens against the property (e.g., Noved Realty Corp. v. A.A.P. Co., supral 250 A.D. 1 , 293 N.Y.S. 336 (1st Dep’t 1937) ]), expenses or income (e.g., Rodas v. Manitaras, supra[, 159 A.D.2d 341 , 552 N.Y.S.2d 618 (1st Dep’t 1990)] [gross receipts]) and other factors affecting its operation. No case has been brought to this court’s attention in which the property value was impaired as the result of the reputation created by information disseminated to the public by the seller (or, for that matter, as a result of possession by poltergeists). Where a condition which has been created by the seller materially impairs the value of the contract and is peculiarly within the knowledge of the seller or unlikely to be discovered by a prudent purchaser exercising due care with respect to the subject transaction, nondisclosure constitutes a”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 820 F. Supp. 2d 461 - Ridge Seneca Plaza, LLC v. BP Products North America · United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

2. “when the facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the party invoking the disclaimer.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co. · United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

3. “a very practical problem arises with respect to the discovery of a paranormal phenomenon: “Who you gonna’ call?” as a title song to the movie “Ghostbusters” asks. Applying the strict rule of caveat emptor to a contract involving a house possessed by poltergeists conjures up visions of a psychic or medium routinely accompanying the structural engineer and Terminix man on an inspection of every home subject to a contract of sale. It portends that the prudent attorney will establish an escrow account lest the subject of the transaction come back to haunt him and his client — or pray that his malpractice insurance coverage extends to supernatural disasters. In the interest of avoiding such untenable consequences, the notion that a haunting is a condition which can and should be ascertained upon reasonable inspection of the premises is a hobgoblin which should be exorcised from the body of legal precedent and laid quietly to rest.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 820 F. Supp. 2d 461 - Ridge Seneca Plaza, LLC v. BP Products North America