Alfano v. Stark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alfano v. Stark

35 A.D.2d 522, 314 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4168

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 2, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.2d 522 (Alfano v. Stark) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alfano v. Stark, 35 A.D.2d 522, 314 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

[523]*523No opinion. Christ, P. J., Munder, Latham and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant judgment to plaintiff, with the following memorandum: I am of the view that the affirmative defense offered to refute plaintiff’s prima facie case was incredible as a matter of law. Moreover, the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff to testify, over objection, upon examination by defense counsel, regarding the conversation with defendant wherein he related the alleged transaction with the decedent relative to the notes. This not only violated the statutory prohibition against disclosure of transactions with decedents (CPLR 4519) but also was self-serving hearsay.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[523]*523No opinion. Christ, P. J., Munder, Latham and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur; Martuscello, J., dissents and votes to reverse the judgment and to grant judgment to plaintiff, with the following memorandum: I am of the view that the affirmative defense offered to refute plaintiff’s prima facie case was incredible as a matter of law. Moreover, the trial court erred in allowing plaintiff to testify, over objection, upon examination by defense counsel, regarding the conversation with defendant wherein he related the alleged transaction with the decedent relative to the notes. This not only violated the statutory prohibition against disclosure of transactions with decedents (CPLR 4519) but also was self-serving hearsay.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.2d 522, 314 N.Y.S.2d 164, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alfano-v-stark-nyappdiv-1970.