Urso v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Urso v. Riley

210 A.D.2d 954, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1021

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 210 A.D.2d 954 (Urso v. Riley) 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

Urso v. Riley, 210 A.D.2d 954, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1021 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Because defendants admitted in their answer that they had agreed to reconvey to plaintiff a one-half interest in a parcel of real estate in Cheektowaga, and because defendants did not offer any proof that the agreement to reconvey was conditional, Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff (see, Krieger v Krieger, 192 AD2d 1076, 1077). Defendants’ assertion that plaintiff orally requested that defendants hold plaintiff’s interest in this and another parcel in trust for defendants’ children lacks merit. Under General Obligations Law § 5-703 (1), defendants cannot charge plaintiff with having created a trust over the real property in the absence of a deed or conveyance in writing (see, Higgins v Normile, 130 AD2d 828, 829). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Partial Summary Judgment.) Present—Balio, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: Because defendants admitted in their answer that they had agreed to reconvey to plaintiff a one-half interest in a parcel of real estate in Cheektowaga, and because defendants did not offer any proof that the agreement to reconvey was conditional, Supreme Court properly granted partial summary judgment to plaintiff (see, Krieger v Krieger, 192 AD2d 1076, 1077). Defendants’ assertion that plaintiff orally requested that defendants hold plaintiff’s interest in this and another parcel in trust for defendants’ children lacks merit. Under General Obligations Law § 5-703 (1), defendants cannot charge plaintiff with having created a trust over the real property in the absence of a deed or conveyance in writing (see, Higgins v Normile, 130 AD2d 828, 829). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.—Partial Summary Judgment.) Present—Balio, J. P., Lawton, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 954, 621 N.Y.S.2d 1021, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/urso-v-riley-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack