A lawsuit filed by the purported owner of multiple Bronx properties—who had contended that he should be awarded the properties’ titles because he and the current owner verbally agreed to their transfer—is barred by the statute of frauds despite the purported owner’s argument that he’d already financed the purchases in reliance on the verbal deal.

An Appellate Division, First Department, panel rejected the reliance-based argument of promissory estoppel by plaintiff Mohammed Aziz. The justices indicated that Aziz would not suffer an unfair injury if the statute of frauds applied. Injury to a relying party is an element of promissory estoppel.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]