Ellsworth v. Fong

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ellsworth v. Fong

216 A.D.2d 253, 628 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7116

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

DecidedJune 29, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 253 (Ellsworth v. Fong) 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

Ellsworth v. Fong, 216 A.D.2d 253, 628 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7116 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about November 3, 1994, which, after a nonjury trial, determined that the decedent had made a valid inter vivos gift of the subject ring to defendant, and that the bequest to plaintiff adeemed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the Surrogate that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended, by her signed and witnessed instrument, to legally memorialize a gift of the subject ring to defendant, her friend and primary beneficiary, and that there was delivery to and acceptance by him (see, Gruen v Gruen, 68 NY2d 48, 53). If there was a fiduciary relationship between the decedent and defendant, it was only marginally so, and, in any event, like the Surrogate, we find no evidence suggesting that the transaction was not understood by the donor, or that fraud, mistake or undue influence infected the transaction. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Decree, Surrogate’s Court, New York County (Renee Roth, S.), entered on or about November 3, 1994, which, after a nonjury trial, determined that the decedent had made a valid inter vivos gift of the subject ring to defendant, and that the bequest to plaintiff adeemed, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the Surrogate that the record contains clear and convincing evidence that the decedent intended, by her signed and witnessed instrument, to legally memorialize a gift of the subject ring to defendant, her friend and primary beneficiary, and that there was delivery to and acceptance by him (see, Gruen v Gruen, 68 NY2d 48, 53). If there was a fiduciary relationship between the decedent and defendant, it was only marginally so, and, in any event, like the Surrogate, we find no evidence suggesting that the transaction was not understood by the donor, or that fraud, mistake or undue influence infected the transaction. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Asch, Nardelli and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 253, 628 N.Y.S.2d 690, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7116, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ellsworth-v-fong-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack