Frietas v. Frietas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Frietas v. Frietas

89 A.D.2d 921, 454 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18105

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

DecidedAugust 30, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 89 A.D.2d 921 (Frietas v. Frietas) 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

Frietas v. Frietas, 89 A.D.2d 921, 454 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for the partition of real property, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered October 19, 1981, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Defendant’s claim of duress leading to the execution of the deed is difficult to credit. She had her own personal attorney prepare and assist her in the execution of the deed and the record indicates that, since plaintiff had contributed a significant amount of money to the household, there was a valid reason for executing the deed. Finally, defendant’s claim of duress and disharmony between the parties before the deed was executed is gainsaid by the fact that the marriage lasted for approximately seven years after the deed was executed. Under all of the circumstances, it appears that the trial court correctly determined that there was no showing of duress sufficient to warrant the setting aside of the conveyance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for the partition of real property, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Gurahian, J.), entered October 19, 1981, which, after a nonjury trial, was in favor of the plaintiff. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Defendant’s claim of duress leading to the execution of the deed is difficult to credit. She had her own personal attorney prepare and assist her in the execution of the deed and the record indicates that, since plaintiff had contributed a significant amount of money to the household, there was a valid reason for executing the deed. Finally, defendant’s claim of duress and disharmony between the parties before the deed was executed is gainsaid by the fact that the marriage lasted for approximately seven years after the deed was executed. Under all of the circumstances, it appears that the trial court correctly determined that there was no showing of duress sufficient to warrant the setting aside of the conveyance. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment appealed from. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 921, 454 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/frietas-v-frietas-nyappdiv-1982.