Halfond v. Halfond

Second Circuit

Halfond v. Halfond

82 F. App'x 58

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedDecember 4, 2003

DocketNo. 03-7482

StatusPublished

This text of 82 F. App'x 58 (Halfond v. Halfond) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Halfond v. Halfond, 82 F. App'x 58 (2d Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Irwin Halfond (“Irwin”) filed a diversity suit in federal district court against his mother, Bertha Hal-fond (“Bertha”); his sister, Sandra Lehrer (“Sandra”); and his brother-in-law, Lonnie Lehrer (“Lonnie”), claiming various state law violations in connection with the disposition of the estate of Irwin’s and Sandra’s father and Bertha’s husband, Bernard Hal-fond (“Bernard”). Adopting the conclusions of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court dismissed most of Irwin’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and granted summary judgment to the defendants as to his other claims. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on his claim that defendants unlawfully converted proceeds from the sale of bonds that Bernard had allegedly given to Irwin. We affirm.

New York law prescribes that a gift is made when the following can be established by clear and convincing evidence: (1) an intent on the part of the donor to make a present gift; (2) delivery to the donee of the property, consistent with the donor’s intent; and (3) acceptance on the part of the donee. See Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 53, 505 N.Y.S.2d 849, 496 N.E.2d 869 (1986). As the lower courts found, the plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the donor’s intent was to give the bonds to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff was not the rightful owner of the property at issue, he cannot prevail on his conversion claim. See Kaufman v. Simms Motor Sales Co., 261 N.Y. 146, 149, 184 N.E. 739 (1933). Therefore, summary judgment on this claim was appropriate.

We have considered all of the appellant’s other arguments and find them to be meritless. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

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

SUMMARY ORDER

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED.

Plaintiff-Appellant Irwin Halfond (“Irwin”) filed a diversity suit in federal district court against his mother, Bertha Hal-fond (“Bertha”); his sister, Sandra Lehrer (“Sandra”); and his brother-in-law, Lonnie Lehrer (“Lonnie”), claiming various state law violations in connection with the disposition of the estate of Irwin’s and Sandra’s father and Bertha’s husband, Bernard Hal-fond (“Bernard”). Adopting the conclusions of a magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation, the district court dismissed most of Irwin’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and granted summary judgment to the defendants as to his other claims. On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants on his claim that defendants unlawfully converted proceeds from the sale of bonds that Bernard had allegedly given to Irwin. We affirm.

New York law prescribes that a gift is made when the following can be established by clear and convincing evidence: (1) an intent on the part of the donor to make a present gift; (2) delivery to the donee of the property, consistent with the donor’s intent; and (3) acceptance on the part of the donee. See Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 53, 505 N.Y.S.2d 849, 496 N.E.2d 869 (1986). As the lower courts found, the plaintiff has failed to adduce evidence that would allow a reasonable factfinder to conclude that the donor’s intent was to give the bonds to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff was not the rightful owner of the property at issue, he cannot prevail on his conversion claim. See Kaufman v. Simms Motor Sales Co., 261 N.Y. 146, 149, 184 N.E. 739 (1933). Therefore, summary judgment on this claim was appropriate.

We have considered all of the appellant’s other arguments and find them to be meritless. Accordingly, we AFFIRM.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 F. App'x 58, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halfond-v-halfond-ca2-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack