Alston v. Gregory

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Alston v. Gregory

281 A.D.2d 440, 721 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215

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

DecidedMarch 12, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 440 (Alston v. Gregory) 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

Alston v. Gregory, 281 A.D.2d 440, 721 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a judgment declaring a deed null and void, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), entered August 16, 1999, which, after an nonjury trial, declared the deed null and void.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s determination that the defendant, who was responsible for the management of the grantor’s day-today affairs, had a special relationship with the grantor is supported by the evidence adduced at trial (see, Hennessey v Ecker, 170 AD2d 650, 651). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate that the acquisition of the subject deed was not the product of undue influence (see, Hennessey v Ecker, supra). The Supreme Court’s determination that the defendant exercised undue influence is supported by the record (see, Matter of Antoinette, 238 AD2d 762, 763; Hennessey v Ecker, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a judgment declaring a deed null and void, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Carson, J.), entered August 16, 1999, which, after an nonjury trial, declared the deed null and void.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court’s determination that the defendant, who was responsible for the management of the grantor’s day-today affairs, had a special relationship with the grantor is supported by the evidence adduced at trial (see, Hennessey v Ecker, 170 AD2d 650, 651). Therefore, it was incumbent upon the defendant to demonstrate that the acquisition of the subject deed was not the product of undue influence (see, Hennessey v Ecker, supra). The Supreme Court’s determination that the defendant exercised undue influence is supported by the record (see, Matter of Antoinette, 238 AD2d 762, 763; Hennessey v Ecker, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J. P., Goldstein, Luciano and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 440, 721 N.Y.S.2d 552, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alston-v-gregory-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack