Summary
In Briganti v. Saraceno, 91 A.D.2d 648, 457 N.Y.S.2d 90 (2d Dept. 1982), for example, the court decided that defendant had raised an issue of fraud sufficient to avoid specific performance by alleging that he was an 87-year old illiterate who was misled into signing a document which he did not know was a contract of sale for his home.
Summary of this case from Federal Deposit Ins. v. Kuang Hsung ChuangOpinion
December 20, 1982
In an action to compel specific performance of a contract for the purchase and sale of real property, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jordan, J.), dated March 18, 1982, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment and directed the defendant to specifically perform the terms of the contract. Order reversed, with $50 costs and disbursements, and cross motion denied. In our view, the 87-year-old illiterate defendant's allegations that he was unaware that the contract was for the sale of his home, and that he placed his mark on the document at the deceptive urging of those in whom he had misplaced his confidence, are sufficient to raise a triable issue of fraud (see National Bank of North Amer. v Chu, 47 N.Y.2d 946). Accordingly, the plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment should have been denied. Mollen, P.J., Gulotta, Brown and Boyers, JJ., concur.