Search for: "Driver v. Hinnant"
Results 1 - 1
of 1
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
30 Jan 2020, 4:13 am
As there is no evidence suggesting that Grover & Fensterstock was aware of or part of Lauria’s fraudulent scheme, none of the exceptions to the privity requirement are applicable here (see Mauro v Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 116 AD3d 930, 933 [2d Dept 2014]; Chemical Bank v Bowers, 228 AD2d 407, 408 [2d Dept 1996]; see also Hinnant v Carrington Mtge. [read post]
