Fragetti v. Fragetti

262 A.D.2d 527, 692 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7028
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 21, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 527 (Fragetti v. Fragetti) 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
Fragetti v. Fragetti, 262 A.D.2d 527, 692 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

—In an action to set aside a separation agreement, the plaintiff husband appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cannizzaro, J.H.O.), dated April 27, 1998, which, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Generally, the deposit of funds into a joint account constitutes prima facie evidence of an intent to create a joint tenancy (see, Banking Law § 675). The presumption created by Banking Law § 675 can be rebutted “by providing direct proof that no joint tenancy was intended or substantial circumstantial proof that the joint account had been opened for convenience only” (Wacikowski v Wacikowski, 93 AD2d 885).

[528]*528Here, the parents of the defendant wife were the sole source of the funds in the joint accounts, the interest earned on the account was reported under the parents’ Social Security numbers and not the defendant’s, the defendant’s name was added to the account as a convenience in the event of the parents’ illness or disability, and the defendant made no deposits or withdrawals on her own behalf. As a result, the trial court properly found that the wife rebutted the presumption of ownership of the funds (see, Viggiano v Viggiano, 136 AD2d 630; Wacikowski v Wacikowski, supra).

The defendant’s failure to disclose these joint accounts in her statement of net worth does not, standing alone, constitute fraud or overreaching sufficient to vitiate the parties’ postnuptial agreement (see, Panossian v Panossian, 172 AD2d 811; Eckstein v Eckstein, 129 AD2d 552).

The plaintiffs remaining contention lacks merit. Ritter, J. P., Altman, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Ostrowski
2025 NY Slip Op 50708(U) (Erie Surrogate's Court, 2025)
TD Bank, N.A. v. Miller
S.D. New York, 2020
Schacht v. Kunimune
440 P.3d 149 (Alaska Supreme Court, 2019)
VFS Financing, Inc. v. Elias-Savion-Fox LLC
73 F. Supp. 3d 329 (S.D. New York, 2014)
Kai Hong Hom v. Hom
101 A.D.3d 816 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Jacks v. D'Ambrosio
69 A.D.3d 574 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Signature Bank v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A.
67 A.D.3d 917 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Estate of Corcoran
63 A.D.3d 93 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
In re the Estate of Richichi
38 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
In re the Estate of Ricci
18 A.D.3d 663 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
262 A.D.2d 527, 692 N.Y.S.2d 442, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fragetti-v-fragetti-nyappdiv-1999.