I did not know about Woodstock Commons when I bought my house in the neighborhood. My buyer's broker should have told me about it. She did not. I am suing her and her company for nondisclosure of material fact. The project was definitely material to my decision to buy this house, but the information about it was not disclosed. My realtor, Joyce Beymer, never mentioned RUPCO or Woodstock Commons. Here, below, is the complaint in green.
After the complaint, I have uploaded the five pages of the defendants' response. They respond by numbered paragraphs. The highlights of their response are: They deny that Beymer knew about Woodstock Commons. They deny knowing about it now, which is strange since the lawsuit itself is evidence that something is going on in the neighborhood. They deny that the project was passed by the town’s lead agency. They deny that Beymer was my fiduciary and was supposed to be working in my best interest. This is their defense, and they cannot change it.
This defense seems to have been generated by the insurance carrier covering the realtor's and the real estate company's errors and omissions, however that does not make it any less ridiculous. There is some street value to these denials.
I include this information in this blog as a sidebar to the main thrust of this blog, which is opposition to Woodstock Commons. My personal situation with real estate is my personal situation. I am not opposed to the project BECAUSE I have a house nearby. I am, however, knowledgeable about this project because so many of my neighbors were, in the months after I moved in.
For those who accuse me of being opposed to Woodstock Commons because I am a neighbor, that is absolutely wrong. I do not want to live near a construction project (of any kind) that will disturb the peace and quiet I sought when I planned to leave New York City. The possible failure of that plan is totally attributable to Joyce Beymer, who could have told me about RUPCO and Woodstock Commons, and I simply would have bought another house. Had that happened, I would still be opposed to the project had I been informed to the extent I have been, but it is not likely that I would have been so informed, for the information I received initially and since I moved here, has been provided by my current neighbors as well as personal observation.
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT ULSTER COUNTY
_____________________________________________
ROBIN SEGAL,
Plaintiff, COMPLAINT
- against -
JOYCE BEYMER and JOAN C. LONERGAN, as
Principle Broker/Owner and d/b/a COLDWELL
BANKER VILLAGE GREEN REALTY,
Defendant.
______________________________________________
Plaintiff, Robin Segal, by and through her attorneys, Tuczinski, Cavalier, Gilchrist & Collura, P.C., as and for her Complaint against Defendants, Joyce Beymer, Principle Broker/Owner, Individually and d/b/a Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty, alleges as follows:
1. Plaintiff, Robin Segal, is a resident of the Town of Woodstock, Ulster County, New York.
2. At all times herein relevant, Defendant, Joyce Beymer, was and is an employee, agent, representative and broker employed by Defendant Joan C. Lonergan, Principle Broker/Owner, Individually and d/b/a Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty, with an office situate at 11-13 Millhill Road, Woodstock, New York, Ulster County, New York.
3. Upon information and belief, Defendant, Joyce Beymer, is a real estate broker licensed by the State of New York, who represents parties involved in the sale and purchase of real estate within the State of New York.
4. That, upon information and belief, Defendant Joan C. Lonergan, Principle Broker/Owner, Individually and d/b/a Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty employs real estate brokers and agents in connection with the sale and purchase of real estate within the State of New York.
5. That Defendants, as brokers and agents representing principals in the sale and purchase of real property owe and owed a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the principals they were representing in a particular matter, and had and have an ongoing duty of good faith and loyalty, which included and includes disclosing all facts or information known by Defendants, which could affect a principal’s’ decision in a particular matter.
6. On August 29, 2008, and pursuant to her desire to find a residence in the Woodstock area, Plaintiff engaged Defendants to represent her interests as a buyer’s agent, and to locate a residence that would be suitable for Plaintiff, given her desires and objectives.
7. That during the course of her conversations with Defendant Beymer, said Defendant was advised that it was Plaintiff’s intention to leave New York City to get away from the noise, and to find a place that was greener and with more relaxed surroundings, that was quiet and peaceful, and that was within relatively easy walking distance of the center of town.
8. Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s expressed desires and wishes and her emphasis that she was looking for real property that was in a quiet, peaceful setting, Defendant Beymer, individually and on behalf of Defendant Joan C. Lonergan, principle broker/owner, individually and d/b/a Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty, showed and recommended that Plaintiff purchase real property located at 7 Evergreen Lane, Woodstock, New York.
9. As a result of Defendant Beymer’s recommendations and believing that Beymer was acting in furtherance of her best interests, Plaintiff acquired said residential real property and thereafter, made substantial improvements to same, which involved significant time and expense.
10. Subsequent to acquiring title to the real property in or about October 2008, and after the aforereferenced improvements and expenditures were made in and to same, Plaintiff learned for the first time, that the home that she had purchased was in close proximity to a proposed major housing complex on 28 acres of land, which would significantly affect the neighborhood and Plaintiff’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment of her real property.
11. Upon information and belief, the proposed housing project and complex was the development of affordable housing or low-income units, which would increase the number of households in the neighborhood by 300%, change the character of the neighborhood, and result in decreased property values, along with increased traffic and noise, especially during the proposed construction phase.
12. That within the last thirty (30) days, the proposed housing project has been approved by the applicable municipal board within the Town of Woodstock and will directly impact on Plaintiff’s quiet and peaceful enjoyment of her property, as well as her economic and financial investment.
13. That during the time Defendants represented Plaintiff’s interests, Defendant Joyce Beymer, individually and acting on behalf of Coldwell Banker Village Green Realty, was fully aware of this proposed housing project know as Woodstock Commons, which was being developed by an entity known as Rural Ulster Preservation Company, along with its negative impacts including noise and traffic, but failed to disclose and affirmatively withheld such information from Plaintiff.
14. Defendant, acting as buyer’s agent, had a fiduciary duty to represent and act in the best interests of Plaintiff, which included disclosing her knowledge and all relevant information concerning the Woodstock Commons housing project for Plaintiff’s consideration.
15. Had Plaintiff been aware of the proposed Woodstock Commons housing project, she would not have purchased the aforereferenced real property or expended the significant time, energy and expense in making improvements to same.
16. That as a consequence of Defendants breach of fiduciary duty, Plaintiff purchased, and upon information and belief, overpaid for said real property, which she would not have otherwise acquired; expended substantial sums in the development of same; has incurred significant costs and expense; and now has an asset of which, upon information and belief, has further diminished in value, all to her great and substantial financial detriment.
17. This action exceeds the jurisdictional limits of any lower Court which would otherwise have jurisdiction.
AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
18. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs “1” through “17” with the same force and effect as if more fully set forth hereinafter.
19. That notwithstanding being advised of Plaintiff’s objectives and desires in finding a new home and that it be in a quiet, peaceful neighborhood, and despite Defendant Beymer’s knowledge concerning the scope and magnitude of the Woodstock Commons housing project, and the likely importance of that information to Plaintiff, Defendant withheld such information while advocating and urging Plaintiff consider the purchase of these premises.
20. Upon information and belief, Defendant Beymer’s principle motivating factor was receiving a commission, which was contrary to the best interests of Plaintiff, and which placed her economic interests and well being above those of her client to whom she owed a fiduciary duty.
21. That while urging Plaintiff to consider purchasing the aforereferenced real property, Defendant Beymer made representations concerning the suitability of the property which were false and untrue and made solely in an effort to induce Plaintiff to buy the aforereferenced real property.
22. That Plaintiff justifiably relied upon Defendant Beymer’s representations in deciding whether to acquire the real property, while Defendants held themselves out as the buyer’s agent, whom Plaintiff trusted to act in her best interests.
23. That as a consequence of Defendants’ false and/or negligent misrepresentations, Plaintiff purchased, and upon information and belief, overpaid for this real property which she would not have otherwise acquired; expended substantial sums in the development of same; has incurred significant costs and expense; and now has an asset of which, upon information and belief, has further diminished in value, all to her great and substantial financial detriment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants herein on the causes of action as stated herein in an amount of money exceeding the jurisdictional limits of all lower Courts which would otherwise have had jurisdiction and in an amount to be determined at the trial of this action, but in an amount not less than $250,000.00, together with disgorgement of any commissions earned by the Defendants, together with the costs and disbursements of the within action, along with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
