City Streets Realty Corp. v. Wetanson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City Streets Realty Corp. v. Wetanson

174 A.D.2d 408

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

DecidedJune 13, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 408 (City Streets Realty Corp. v. Wetanson) 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

City Streets Realty Corp. v. Wetanson, 174 A.D.2d 408 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered September 27, 1989, which inter alia granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, is unanimously affirmed, with costs payable to Resner by plaintiffs.

The record establishes that plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed. Defendant Wetanson assigned his interest in certain real property to defendants Resner, who in turn sold the property to a third party. While plaintiffs admittedly loaned defendant Wetanson the funds with which Wetanson acquired his interest in the property, plaintiffs’ names never appeared on either the original contract of sale or the assignment. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ assertions that they in fact had an interest in the property must fail, as insufficient facts are alleged to satisfy the requirement of General Obligations Law § 5-703 (2) that a contract for the sale of an interest in real property be evidenced by a writing executed by the party to be charged. (See, e.g., Weisner v Benenson, 275 App Div 324, affd 300 NY 669.)

We also find that the Resners’ counterclaims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution and punitive damages were properly dismissed. There was no allegation of actual or special damages. Mere institution of a civil action is insufficient. (See, Allen v Murray House Owners Corp., 130 AD2d 356.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered September 27, 1989, which inter alia granted summary judgment to defendants dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint, is unanimously affirmed, with costs payable to Resner by plaintiffs.

The record establishes that plaintiffs’ complaint was properly dismissed. Defendant Wetanson assigned his interest in certain real property to defendants Resner, who in turn sold the property to a third party. While plaintiffs admittedly loaned defendant Wetanson the funds with which Wetanson acquired his interest in the property, plaintiffs’ names never appeared on either the original contract of sale or the assignment. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ assertions that they in fact had an interest in the property must fail, as insufficient facts are alleged to satisfy the requirement of General Obligations Law § 5-703 (2) that a contract for the sale of an interest in real property be evidenced by a writing executed by the party to be charged. (See, e.g., Weisner v Benenson, 275 App Div 324, affd 300 NY 669.)

We also find that the Resners’ counterclaims for abuse of process, malicious prosecution and punitive damages were properly dismissed. There was no allegation of actual or special damages. Mere institution of a civil action is insufficient. (See, Allen v Murray House Owners Corp., 130 AD2d 356.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 408, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-streets-realty-corp-v-wetanson-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack