By Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Kapnick, Webber, Moulton, JJ.7500. Mohammed Aziz, plf-ap, v. Anna Development LLC def-res — Agulnick & Gogel, LLC, Great Neck (William A. Gogel of counsel), for ap — Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP, New York (Judy C. Selmeci of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Julia I. Rodriguez, J.), entered January 26, 2018, which granted in part defendants’ motion to dismiss, unanimously affirmed, without costs.Plaintiff Aziz commenced this action against defendants’ Anna Development and Khaled, asserting causes of action for a declaratory judgment that he owned certain Bronx properties, to quiet title to those properties, to set aside the deeds to those properties, for unjust enrichment, and for a constructive trust. Aziz alleged that he and Khaled had entered into an oral agreement to purchase unspecified real property in the Bronx through Anna Development and that he financed the purchases in reliance on Khaled’s promise to hold the properties in Anna Development’s name for his benefit. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(2), (5), and (7), and GOL §5-703, arguing that the complaint failed to state a cause of action because any oral agreement regarding the properties was void under the statute of frauds.We find that the motion court properly dismissed plaintiff’s causes of action for a declaratory judgment, to quiet title, and to set aside the deeds, as barred by the statute of frauds because there was no writing evidencing plaintiff’s ownership of the properties at issue. Contrary to plaintiff’s argument, any alleged and fiduciary relationship between he and defendant Khaled would not preclude the application of the statute of frauds to his causes of action for a declaratory judgment, to quiet title, and to set aside deeds.While the doctrine of promissory estoppel may be an exception to the statute of frauds, under the facts of this case, the doctrine of promissory estoppel does not apply (Matter of Hennel, 29 NY3d 487, 494 [2017]). Further, plaintiff has not shown that any other exception to the statute of frauds applies.We have considered plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing.This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
By Acosta, P.J., Friedman, Kapnick, Webber, Moulton, JJ.7501. In re Noah I.T., A Child Under the Age of Eighteen Years, etc., Argenis C., res-ap, Catholic Guardian Services, pet-res — Richard L. Herzfeld, P.C., New York (Richard L. Herzfeld of counsel), for ap — Magovern & Sclafani, Mineola (Joanna M. Roberson of counsel), for res — Law Office of Cabelly & Calderon, Jamaica (Lewis S. Calderon of counsel), attorney for the child.—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Linda B. Tally, J.), entered on or about June 29, 2017, which determined that respondent father’s consent was not required for the adoption of the subject child and that even if his consent were required it may be dispensed with since he abandoned the child, and committed the custody and guardianship of the child to petitioner agency and the Commissioner of Social Services for the purpose of adoption, unanimously affirmed, without costs.The rights of respondent, as a notice father, were limited to notice of the proceeding and an opportunity to be heard concerning the child’s best interests (see Domestic Relations Law 111-a; Social Services Law §384-c; Matter of Skyla Lanie B. [Jonathan Miranda B.], 116 AD3d 589 [1st Dept 2014]).Respondent’s argument that he was denied his right to be heard as to the best interests of the child at a separate dispositional hearing, is unavailing since the record shows that respondent received the required notice of the fact-finding hearing on the termination of parental rights petition, but failed to testify or present any evidence. Furthermore, given the court’s alternate finding that respondent abandoned the child, the decision as to whether to conduct a dispositional hearing rested within the sound discretion of the court; such a hearing is not required (see Matter of Asia Sabrina N. [Olu N.], 117 AD3d 543 [1st Dept 2014]).This constitutes the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
