In re Harley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Harley

186 A.D.2d 1020, 590 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1020 (In re Harley) 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

In re Harley, 186 A.D.2d 1020, 590 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Surrogate properly denied respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The presumption that bank accounts in the names of respondent and decedent constituted joint tenancies with a right of survivorship may be rebutted (Banking Law § 675) only by a clear and convincing showing that, at the time the accounts were created, the accounts were opened as a matter of convenience, or by proving undue influence, fraud or lack of capacity (see, Brezinski v Brezinski, 94 AD2d 969; Matter of Camarda, 63 AD2d 837, 838). The proof submitted by petitioner in opposition to respondent’s motion was sufficient to raise a question of fact whether decedent lacked the requisite mental capacity at the time that the accounts were created. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Surrogate’s Court, Mattina, S.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The Surrogate properly denied respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The presumption that bank accounts in the names of respondent and decedent constituted joint tenancies with a right of survivorship may be rebutted (Banking Law § 675) only by a clear and convincing showing that, at the time the accounts were created, the accounts were opened as a matter of convenience, or by proving undue influence, fraud or lack of capacity (see, Brezinski v Brezinski, 94 AD2d 969; Matter of Camarda, 63 AD2d 837, 838). The proof submitted by petitioner in opposition to respondent’s motion was sufficient to raise a question of fact whether decedent lacked the requisite mental capacity at the time that the accounts were created. (Appeal from Order of Erie County Surrogate’s Court, Mattina, S.— Summary Judgment.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Pine, Boehm and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1020, 590 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-harley-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack