Moulton v. Moore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moulton v. Moore

33 A.D.2d 887, 307 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2647

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

DecidedDecember 11, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 887 (Moulton v. Moore) 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

Moulton v. Moore, 33 A.D.2d 887, 307 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2647 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Livingston County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action for specific performance, the court found that the plaintiffs had an oral option to buy the property and that because of their part performance, the Statute of Frauds was not a bar to their action. While there was sufficient proof of an oral option, the part performance was not unequivocally referable to the oral agreement and, therefore, insufficient to overcome the defense of the Statute of Frauds (Wilson v. La Van, 22 N Y 2d 131). However, since the plaintiffs did prove that improvements, which enhanced the value of the property, were made in reliance on the oral agreement, they should be reimbursed for them (Wilson v. La Van, supra) less any amount the court may find due the defendant for rent or use of the property and removal of improvements made and left on the property by plaintiffs in violation of agreement between the parties. All concur, except Del Yecehio, J. P., who dissents and votes to affirm. (Appeal from judgment and order of Livingston Trial [888]*888Term granting specific performance; order denied motion to vacate judgment.) Present — ■ Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Moule, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment and order reversed on the law and facts, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Livingston County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: In this action for specific performance, the court found that the plaintiffs had an oral option to buy the property and that because of their part performance, the Statute of Frauds was not a bar to their action. While there was sufficient proof of an oral option, the part performance was not unequivocally referable to the oral agreement and, therefore, insufficient to overcome the defense of the Statute of Frauds (Wilson v. La Van, 22 N Y 2d 131). However, since the plaintiffs did prove that improvements, which enhanced the value of the property, were made in reliance on the oral agreement, they should be reimbursed for them (Wilson v. La Van, supra) less any amount the court may find due the defendant for rent or use of the property and removal of improvements made and left on the property by plaintiffs in violation of agreement between the parties. All concur, except Del Yecehio, J. P., who dissents and votes to affirm. (Appeal from judgment and order of Livingston Trial [888]*888Term granting specific performance; order denied motion to vacate judgment.) Present — ■ Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Moule, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 887, 307 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moulton-v-moore-nyappdiv-1969.