Goldstein v. Schachne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldstein v. Schachne

261 A.D. 922, 25 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8100

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1941

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D. 922 (Goldstein v. Schachne) 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

Goldstein v. Schachne, 261 A.D. 922, 25 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8100 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside a conveyance of real property on the ground of fraud, order modified by striking out the second and third ordering paragraphs and by inserting in place thereof a provision denying the motion to dismiss the second cause of action set forth in the amended complaint. As thus modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. Drawing the most favorable inference from the complaint, the cause of action pleaded is that by fraud the defendants procured the signature of Leije Gitel Schachne to a deed at a time when she was unaware of its nature and that never thereafter during her lifetime did she discover the perpetration of the fraud. The gravamen of the complaint is actual fraud as distinguished from legal or constructive fraud, and section 48, subdivisión 5, of the Civil Practice Act is applicable. (Pitcher v. Sutton, 238 App. Div. 291; affd., 264 N. Y. 638; Carr v. Thompson, 87 id. 160, 163, 164; Smith v. Hamilton, 43 App. Div. 17; Chorrmann v. Bachmann, 119 id. 146; Glover v. National Bank of Commerce, 156 id. 247; Keys v. Leopold, 241 N. Y. 189, 192, 193.) The sole basis of the motion addressed to the second cause of action is that the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to set aside a conveyance of real property on the ground of fraud, order modified by striking out the second and third ordering paragraphs and by inserting in place thereof a provision denying the motion to dismiss the second cause of action set forth in the amended complaint. As thus modified, the order, in so far as appealed from, is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to appellant. Drawing the most favorable inference from the complaint, the cause of action pleaded is that by fraud the defendants procured the signature of Leije Gitel Schachne to a deed at a time when she was unaware of its nature and that never thereafter during her lifetime did she discover the perpetration of the fraud. The gravamen of the complaint is actual fraud as distinguished from legal or constructive fraud, and section 48, subdivisión 5, of the Civil Practice Act is applicable. (Pitcher v. Sutton, 238 App. Div. 291; affd., 264 N. Y. 638; Carr v. Thompson, 87 id. 160, 163, 164; Smith v. Hamilton, 43 App. Div. 17; Chorrmann v. Bachmann, 119 id. 146; Glover v. National Bank of Commerce, 156 id. 247; Keys v. Leopold, 241 N. Y. 189, 192, 193.) The sole basis of the motion addressed to the second cause of action is that the cause of action was barred by the Statute of Limitations. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 922, 25 N.Y.S.2d 445, 1941 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8100, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldstein-v-schachne-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack