Ryan Dacko v. Irakli Kiladze
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Residential real estate—ejectment and enforceability of an oral home sale agreement under the statute of frauds and the part performance exception.
Granted plaintiff summary judgment on ejectment and dismissed defendant’s counterclaims, holding the oral purchase agreement void under the statute of frauds and finding no applicable part performance.
The grant of summary judgment ejecting defendant and the dismissal of defendant’s counterclaims were reversed; counterclaims reinstated and the related ordering paragraphs vacated.
Defendant’s deposition (submitted by plaintiff) raised triable issues of fact as to part performance—possession, structured and lump-sum payments totaling $33,200 toward a $40,000 purchase price, and tender of the balance—potentially taking the oral agreement outside General Obligations Law (GOL) § 5-703 [2] [contract for the sale of any real property is void unless the contract or a note or memorandum expressing consideration is in writing] via § 5-703 [4] [exception in cases of part performance]. Because plaintiff’s own submissions created factual disputes, summary judgment had to be denied regardless of the sufficiency of defendant’s opposition.
Background
Plaintiff allowed his friend, defendant, to move into a vacant home in 2019 with no rent agreement. The parties later orally agreed that defendant would purchase the home for $40,000 over three years, paying $600 per month the first year and unspecified payments thereafter. Defendant paid $600 monthly for 12 months and then made lump-sum payments, totaling $33,200, and later tendered the remaining balance. Plaintiff rejected the tender and sued for ejectment; defendant counterclaimed based on the oral agreement.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court, Onondaga County, granted plaintiff summary judgment on ejectment and dismissed defendant’s counterclaims, concluding the oral contract was void under the statute of frauds and that the part performance exception did not apply.
Appellate Division Reversal
Unanimously reversed on the law without costs. The court denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on ejectment and to dismiss the counterclaims, reinstated the counterclaims, and vacated the second and third ordering paragraphs. The court held that defendant’s testimony raised factual issues as to part performance that may remove the oral agreement from the statute of frauds and, consequently, as to plaintiff’s ownership status and present right to possession. Given that these issues were raised by plaintiff’s own submissions, summary judgment was improper.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms that alleged part performance—acts unequivocally referable to an oral real estate sale—can create triable issues defeating summary judgment under GOL § 5-703 [2] and [4]. In ejectment actions, a plaintiff’s claimed immediate right to possession may be undermined where the occupant shows substantial performance consistent with an oral purchase agreement. A movant’s own evidence can preclude summary judgment regardless of the opponent’s papers.
In New York, substantial payments, possession, and tender of the balance under an oral home sale can raise triable issues of part performance that bar summary ejectment and require reinstatement of buyer’s counterclaims.