¶1I still believe — as I wrote in dissent in Danann Realty Corp. v. Harris (5 N Y 2d 317, 323) —that a party who has induced another to enter into a contract by means of fraud should not be permitted by insertion of a clause in that contract to shield himself from its consequences. However, since I consider myself bound by the court’s decision in that *265case, I must perforce join in the judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendant owner. But I cannot resist observing that, although the distinction drawn between the liability of the owner and that of the agent strikes me as thoroughly unreal and unreasonable, it is compelled by the court’s conclusion in Banann that a person may by verbiage in the contract escape liability for his own fraud.
9 N.Y.2d 261
Wittenberg v. Robinov
Decided March 2, 1961
New York Court of Appeals · decided 1961-03-02
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1961-03-02
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently February 2010 · most notably Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Aniero Concrete Co. (2005), Leasco Corp. v. Taussig (1972)
3 federal appellate · 4 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
View the full empirical analysis of this case →