Rechais v. McGivans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rechais v. McGivans

119 A.D.3d 667, 988 N.Y.S.2d 896

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

DecidedJuly 9, 2014

Docket2013-05422

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.3d 667 (Rechais v. McGivans) 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

Rechais v. McGivans, 119 A.D.3d 667, 988 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered April 5, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of an alleged oral contract to convey an interest in real property. The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established, prima *668 facie, that the action was barred by the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [1]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the part performance exception to the statute of frauds is inapplicable, as the plaintiffs alleged actions were not “unequivocally referable” to the alleged oral agreement (Mess ner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v Aegis Group, 93 NY2d 229, 235 [1999]; see Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 NY2d 662, 664 [1983]; Burns v McCormick, 233 NY 230, 232 [1922]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff s remaining contentions.

Mastro, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Giacomo, J.), entered April 5, 2013, as granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action to recover damages for breach of an alleged oral contract to convey an interest in real property. The Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the defendant’s cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The defendant established, prima *668 facie, that the action was barred by the statute of frauds (see General Obligations Law § 5-703 [1]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the part performance exception to the statute of frauds is inapplicable, as the plaintiffs alleged actions were not “unequivocally referable” to the alleged oral agreement (Mess ner Vetere Berger McNamee Schmetterer Euro RSCG v Aegis Group, 93 NY2d 229, 235 [1999]; see Anostario v Vicinanzo, 59 NY2d 662, 664 [1983]; Burns v McCormick, 233 NY 230, 232 [1922]).

In light of our determination, we need not reach the plaintiff s remaining contentions.

Mastro, J.E, Leventhal, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.3d 667, 988 N.Y.S.2d 896, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rechais-v-mcgivans-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack