Legal Opinion · Dissent
Anostario v. Vicinanzo
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided March 31, 1977Published
1Dissent
Mahoney, J. (dissenting).
It is clear that the contract sought to be enforced was oral and had as its purpose the purchase of realty. It is settled New York law "that an oral contract by two or more persons to purchase real estate for their joint benefit * * * involving no element of partnership, falls within the ban of the Statute of Frauds” (Rizika v Kowalsky, 207 Misc 254, 259-260, affd 285 App Div 1009; General Obligations Law, § 5-703, subd 1). Therefore, since the alleged agreement contemplated the purchase of realty through the vehicle of a corporation, it is unenforceable unless some…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Crabtree v. Elizabeth Arden Sales Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1953
- Woolley v. . StewartNew York Court of Appeals · 1918
- Marks v. . CowdinNew York Court of Appeals · 1919
- Weisman v. Awnair Corp. of Am.New York Court of Appeals · 1957
- Carpenter v. WeichertAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.