Briganti v. Saraceno

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Briganti v. Saraceno

91 A.D.2d 648, 457 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19514

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 20, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 91 A.D.2d 648 (Briganti v. Saraceno) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Briganti v. Saraceno, 91 A.D.2d 648, 457 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the purchase and sale of real property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated March 18,1982, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment and directed the defendant to specifically perform the terms of the contract. Order reversed, [649]*649with $50 costs and disbursements, and cross motion denied. In our view, the 87-year-old illiterate defendant’s allegations that he was unaware that the contract was for the sale of his home, and that he placed his mark on the document at the deceptive urging of those in whom he had misplaced his confidence, are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fraud (see National Bank of North Amer. v Chu, 47 NY2d 946). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Mollen, P. J., Gulotta, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— In an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the purchase and sale of real property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated March 18,1982, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment and directed the defendant to specifically perform the terms of the contract. Order reversed, [649]*649with $50 costs and disbursements, and cross motion denied. In our view, the 87-year-old illiterate defendant’s allegations that he was unaware that the contract was for the sale of his home, and that he placed his mark on the document at the deceptive urging of those in whom he had misplaced his confidence, are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fraud (see National Bank of North Amer. v Chu, 47 NY2d 946). Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Mollen, P. J., Gulotta, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.2d 648, 457 N.Y.S.2d 90, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/briganti-v-saraceno-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack