By LARRY MAIER
Once again, Neil and Kerry Glazer had their day in court ... and lost.
On Thursday, Dec. 7, the state Appellate Division Court, Second Department, affirmed an earlier State Supreme Court decision to dismiss the Baldwin couple's complaint against the real-estate agents and the sellers who failed to inform them that a convicted sex offender lived in their new neighborhood.
The Glazers moved into their Baldwin home in summer 1999, unaware that convicted child molester William Osterer lived across the street.
In the Supreme Court case, the Glazers contended that the sellers and the real-estate agents fraudulently misrepresented the house as a good place to raise children, and knowingly concealed information about Mr. Osterer.
The Supreme Court verdict, handed down in January dismissed the Glazers' complaint based on the concept of caveat emptor or "buyer beware." The court concluded that sellers and their agents have no duty to investigate or disclose information about the neighborhood to the buyer.
Dean J. Holzman, the Glazers' lawyer, said the appeal was brought on the contention that the lower court erred in its decision based on the law. The Glazers' suit hinged on a decision in the case of Stambovsky v. Ackley - in which the buyer sued the seller after purchasing a home that the seller knew to be allegedly haunted. The trial court in that case upheld the notion of caveat emptor. However, the court did allow that, under more substantive circumstances, exceptions to "buyer beware" could be made.
"The lower court in that case specifically stated that if a more important issue came before the court, they would look at carving an exception. In our case, we felt that we were dealing with a more substantive issue," said Mr. Holzman, asserting that there is a substantial difference between ghosts and child molesters.
"My clients did not know," Michael Ciaffo, the real-estate agents' lawyer, said in regard to Mr. Osterer's criminal record, "...and they had no duty to investigate conditions in the neighborhood outside the house."
According to the Appellate Court decision, a four-judge panel ruled that the Glazers failed to prove any misrepresentation on the part of the sellers or the agents or that they prevented them in any way from discovering facts about the neighborhood. The judges also noted that local newspapers, including the newspaper serving the community in which the Glazers lived before they moved, had published multiple articles regarding the charges against Mr. Osterer for at least two years prior to the sale.
"If these folks had read the papers or knocked on any neighbor's door, they would have known [about Mr. Osterer]," said Alan Marder, the sellers' lawyer.
Mr. Marder added that he was not surprised by either court ruling. "There was nothing novel about this decision," he said.
