Fricano v. Fricano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fricano v. Fricano

110 A.D.2d 809, 488 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48715

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

DecidedApril 22, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 110 A.D.2d 809 (Fricano v. Fricano) 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

Fricano v. Fricano, 110 A.D.2d 809, 488 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48715 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[810]*810In the instant case, plaintiff, the former husband of defendant, in effect seeks to set aside, as fraudulent, a deed allegedly conveying his interest in the former marital premises, which had been jointly owned by the parties, to defendant only.

Prior to serving an answer, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was a defense founded on documentary evidence which indicated that the action was without merit (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). Specifically, defendant submitted the deed, as well as another document, which allegedly indicated that plaintiff had agreed to and, in fact, had made the transfer in question. In opposition, plaintiff, by affidavit, challenged the genuineness of the deed, and also, the other document, submitted by defendant.

Under these circumstances, we find that the papers before Special Term were insufficient to disprove plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

[810]*810In the instant case, plaintiff, the former husband of defendant, in effect seeks to set aside, as fraudulent, a deed allegedly conveying his interest in the former marital premises, which had been jointly owned by the parties, to defendant only.

Prior to serving an answer, defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that there was a defense founded on documentary evidence which indicated that the action was without merit (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [1]). Specifically, defendant submitted the deed, as well as another document, which allegedly indicated that plaintiff had agreed to and, in fact, had made the transfer in question. In opposition, plaintiff, by affidavit, challenged the genuineness of the deed, and also, the other document, submitted by defendant.

Under these circumstances, we find that the papers before Special Term were insufficient to disprove plaintiff’s claim as a matter of law. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 809, 488 N.Y.S.2d 71, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48715, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fricano-v-fricano-nyappdiv-1985.