From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Urso v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1994
210 A.D.2d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

December 23, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J.

Present — Balio, J.P., Lawton, Fallon, Wesley and Doerr, JJ.


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 A.D.2d 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 A.D.2d 828, 829).


Summaries of

Urso v. Riley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Dec 23, 1994
210 A.D.2d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Urso v. Riley

Case Details

Full title:SAMUEL J. URSO, Respondent, v. DAVID RILEY et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Dec 23, 1994

Citations

210 A.D.2d 954 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
621 N.Y.S.2d 1021