Ampratwum v. Appiah

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ampratwum v. Appiah

125 A.D.3d 513, 4 N.Y.S.3d 178, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1491

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2015

Docket310817/11 14273NA 14273N

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.3d 513 (Ampratwum v. Appiah) 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

Ampratwum v. Appiah, 125 A.D.3d 513, 4 N.Y.S.3d 178, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about January 22, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, determined that plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of her husband, was entitled to judgment in an amount equal to his interest in a certain property, and appointed a referee to ascertain and report on the value of said interest, and order, same court and Justice, *514 entered on or about April 26, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, confirmed the referee’s report, awarded plaintiff, as administrator, a judgment in the amount of $4,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“While there is a presumption that tenants-in-common share equally in their common tenancy, such a presumption may be rebutted if the facts show that they hold the tenancy in unequal shares. A court acting in equity may take into account the amounts invested in the property by the respective tenants in determining the shares to which they are entitled” (McGuire v McGuire, 93 AD3d 701, 703 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 808 [2012]). Here, the court properly considered defendant’s undisputed testimony that she alone contributed all of the funds utilized to purchase and maintain the property, and that she resided in the home since its purchase. Defendant further testified that her son, plaintiffs husband, never resided in the home and that his name was put on the deed solely for defendant’s convenience.

Pro se plaintiff failed to articulate or provide evidence that the deceased contributed to the purchase or maintenance of the property, that the valuation placed on the property by the referee was in error or that the estate that she represented was entitled to a greater percentage of its value. The court properly found that defendant’s alleged failure to disclose at the inquest that the property was in foreclosure was not relevant to an assessment of the value of the estate’s interest in the property.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lucindo Suarez, J.), entered on or about January 22, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, determined that plaintiff, as administrator of the estate of her husband, was entitled to judgment in an amount equal to his interest in a certain property, and appointed a referee to ascertain and report on the value of said interest, and order, same court and Justice, *514 entered on or about April 26, 2013, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the brief, confirmed the referee’s report, awarded plaintiff, as administrator, a judgment in the amount of $4,000, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

“While there is a presumption that tenants-in-common share equally in their common tenancy, such a presumption may be rebutted if the facts show that they hold the tenancy in unequal shares. A court acting in equity may take into account the amounts invested in the property by the respective tenants in determining the shares to which they are entitled” (McGuire v McGuire, 93 AD3d 701, 703 [2d Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 808 [2012]). Here, the court properly considered defendant’s undisputed testimony that she alone contributed all of the funds utilized to purchase and maintain the property, and that she resided in the home since its purchase. Defendant further testified that her son, plaintiffs husband, never resided in the home and that his name was put on the deed solely for defendant’s convenience.

Pro se plaintiff failed to articulate or provide evidence that the deceased contributed to the purchase or maintenance of the property, that the valuation placed on the property by the referee was in error or that the estate that she represented was entitled to a greater percentage of its value. The court properly found that defendant’s alleged failure to disclose at the inquest that the property was in foreclosure was not relevant to an assessment of the value of the estate’s interest in the property.

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing.

Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, ManzanetDaniels, Gische and Clark, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.3d 513, 4 N.Y.S.3d 178, 2015 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ampratwum-v-appiah-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack