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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 7, 1992·Published·Cited by 2 cases

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.

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

186 A.D.2d 1020 (In re Harley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related