Glachman v. Perlen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Glachman v. Perlen

159 A.D.2d 553, 552 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2707

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

DecidedMarch 12, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 553 (Glachman v. Perlen) 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

Glachman v. Perlen, 159 A.D.2d 553, 552 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 80-b for the return of gifts or the recovery of their value, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered February 3, 1989, as denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

When the plaintiff and the defendant became engaged, the plaintiff gave the defendant a diamond ring. Thereafter, he gave her a gold Rolex watch. After the engagement was called off, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover those items allegedly given to the defendant solely in contemplation of the parties’ marriage.

Although the plaintiff may maintain a cause of action to recover gifts he gave to the defendant solely in contemplation of their marriage (see, Civil Rights Law § 80-b; see also, Gaden v Gaden, 29 NY2d 80), the affidavits submitted by the parties regarding the circumstances under which the alleged gifts were given raise triable issues of fact precluding the awarding of summary judgment. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 80-b for the return of gifts or the recovery of their value, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), entered February 3, 1989, as denied his motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

When the plaintiff and the defendant became engaged, the plaintiff gave the defendant a diamond ring. Thereafter, he gave her a gold Rolex watch. After the engagement was called off, the plaintiff commenced this action to recover those items allegedly given to the defendant solely in contemplation of the parties’ marriage.

Although the plaintiff may maintain a cause of action to recover gifts he gave to the defendant solely in contemplation of their marriage (see, Civil Rights Law § 80-b; see also, Gaden v Gaden, 29 NY2d 80), the affidavits submitted by the parties regarding the circumstances under which the alleged gifts were given raise triable issues of fact precluding the awarding of summary judgment. Brown, J. P., Lawrence, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 553, 552 N.Y.S.2d 418, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glachman-v-perlen-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack