In re Charlotte W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Charlotte W.

259 A.D.2d 1032, 689 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3439

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 31, 1999·Published

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: County Court properly declared null and void the transfers by the alleged incompetent person (AIP) of [1033]*1033her home and $48,164.96 to respondent, her son. Petitioner met his burden of establishing that the AIP was incapacitated at the time of the transfers (see, Spallina v Giannoccaro, 98 AD2d 103; Matter of Camarda, 63 AD2d 837, 839) and that a confidential relationship existed between the AIP and respondent (see, Peters v Nicotera, 248 AD2d 969, 970). The burden then shifted to respondent to show that the transfers were not the product of undue influence or coercion (see, Peters v Nicotera, supra, at 970; Matter of Hall v Clyne, 206 AD2d 428, 429; Matter of Camarda, supra, at 839). Respondent failed to meet that burden. We have examined respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Mental Hygiene Law.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: County Court properly declared null and void the transfers by the alleged incompetent person (AIP) of [1033]*1033her home and $48,164.96 to respondent, her son. Petitioner met his burden of establishing that the AIP was incapacitated at the time of the transfers (see, Spallina v Giannoccaro, 98 AD2d 103; Matter of Camarda, 63 AD2d 837, 839) and that a confidential relationship existed between the AIP and respondent (see, Peters v Nicotera, 248 AD2d 969, 970). The burden then shifted to respondent to show that the transfers were not the product of undue influence or coercion (see, Peters v Nicotera, supra, at 970; Matter of Hall v Clyne, 206 AD2d 428, 429; Matter of Camarda, supra, at 839). Respondent failed to meet that burden. We have examined respondent’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Mental Hygiene Law.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Scudder and Callahan, JJ.

In re Charlotte W., 259 A.D.2d 1032, 689 N.Y.S.2d 898, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

259 A.D.2d 1032 (In re Charlotte W.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related