Bonarrigo v. Bonarrigo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bonarrigo v. Bonarrigo

47 A.D.2d 642, 363 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8816

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 642 (Bonarrigo v. Bonarrigo) 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

Bonarrigo v. Bonarrigo, 47 A.D.2d 642, 363 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8816 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside a deed or, in the alternative, to impress a trust upon real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme [643]*643Court, Richmond County, dated February 7, 1974, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold there was a fiduciary relationship between defendant Anthony Bonarrigo and plaintiff, his wife, which cast the burden upon him to prove that her consent to the surrender of her half interest in the marital home was freely and knowingly given (Matter of Smith, 243 App. Div. 348; Robertson v. Robertson, 44 A D 2d 591). Although plaintiff concedes the signature on the deed to he hers, she testified she had no knowledge of signing it. The notary public who acknowledged the deed was an attorney who shared office space with defendant Bonarrigo. Neither party called him as a witness. It is suggested that at the new trial he be subpoenaed as the trial court’s witness. G-ulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Cohalan, Christ and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to set aside a deed or, in the alternative, to impress a trust upon real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme [643]*643Court, Richmond County, dated February 7, 1974, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint. Order reversed, on the law and the facts, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. Under the circumstances of this case, we hold there was a fiduciary relationship between defendant Anthony Bonarrigo and plaintiff, his wife, which cast the burden upon him to prove that her consent to the surrender of her half interest in the marital home was freely and knowingly given (Matter of Smith, 243 App. Div. 348; Robertson v. Robertson, 44 A D 2d 591). Although plaintiff concedes the signature on the deed to he hers, she testified she had no knowledge of signing it. The notary public who acknowledged the deed was an attorney who shared office space with defendant Bonarrigo. Neither party called him as a witness. It is suggested that at the new trial he be subpoenaed as the trial court’s witness. G-ulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Cohalan, Christ and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 642, 363 N.Y.S.2d 839, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8816, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bonarrigo-v-bonarrigo-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack