Campbell v. Campbell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Campbell v. Campbell

50 A.D.3d 614, 854 N.Y.S.2d 543

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

DecidedApril 1, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 614 (Campbell v. Campbell) 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

Campbell v. Campbell, 50 A.D.3d 614, 854 N.Y.S.2d 543 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed conveying real property on the ground of undue influence and for a judgment declaring the deed invalid, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated April 20, 2006, as, after a nonjury trial, annulled the conveyance, declared the deed invalid, and directed that it be cancelled.

[615]*615Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In reviewing findings made following a nonjury trial, this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Melius v Breslin, 46 AD3d 524, 525 [2007]; Man Choi Chiu v Chiu, 38 AD3d 619, 620 [2007]). In light of the trial court’s opportunity to hear and evaluate the credibility of the conflicting testimony as to the determinative issues, we find no reason to disturb its determination that a confidential relationship existed between the parties and that the defendants failed to prove by clear evidence that the transaction was fair, open, voluntary, and well understood, and therefore free from undue influence (see Matter of Gordon v Bialystoker Ctr. & Bikur Cholim, 45 NY2d 692, 698-699 [1978]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur. [See 12 Misc 3d 1151(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 50850(11).]

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

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed conveying real property on the ground of undue influence and for a judgment declaring the deed invalid, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated April 20, 2006, as, after a nonjury trial, annulled the conveyance, declared the deed invalid, and directed that it be cancelled.

[615]*615Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

In reviewing findings made following a nonjury trial, this Court may render the judgment it finds warranted by the facts, taking account in a close case the fact that the trial judge had the advantage of seeing the witnesses (see Northern Westchester Professional Park Assoc. v Town of Bedford, 60 NY2d 492, 499 [1983]; Melius v Breslin, 46 AD3d 524, 525 [2007]; Man Choi Chiu v Chiu, 38 AD3d 619, 620 [2007]). In light of the trial court’s opportunity to hear and evaluate the credibility of the conflicting testimony as to the determinative issues, we find no reason to disturb its determination that a confidential relationship existed between the parties and that the defendants failed to prove by clear evidence that the transaction was fair, open, voluntary, and well understood, and therefore free from undue influence (see Matter of Gordon v Bialystoker Ctr. & Bikur Cholim, 45 NY2d 692, 698-699 [1978]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur. [See 12 Misc 3d 1151(A), 2006 NY Slip Op 50850(11).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 614, 854 N.Y.S.2d 543, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/campbell-v-campbell-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack