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.