Jackson v. Pichler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jackson v. Pichler

23 A.D.3d 241, 803 N.Y.S.2d 553

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

DecidedNovember 15, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 241 (Jackson v. Pichler) 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

Jackson v. Pichler, 23 A.D.3d 241, 803 N.Y.S.2d 553 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim seeking an adjudication that defendant obtained sole ownership of the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject property was conveyed to Harold Warren and defendant Rosemarie Pichler by deed dated March 20, 1974, purportedly as tenants by the entirety. However, because Harold Warren and defendant are brother and sister, and not husband and wife, it was impossible for them to take title as tenants by the entirety. Thus, pursuant to EPTL 6-2.2 (a), they took title as tenants in common, with no right of survivorship, no express declaration having been included in the deed that they were taking title as joint tenants. Defendant’s reliance upon EPTL 6-2.2 (d) is misplaced. While that provision provides that a disposition of real property to persons who are not married to one another but who are described in the disposition as husband and wife creates in them a joint tenancy, the 1974 deed does not describe Harold Warren and defendant as husband and wife (cf. Hus v Bosworth, 194 AD2d 386 [1993]; Morgan v Morgan, 111 AD2d 790 [1985]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered on or about October 6, 2003, which granted plaintiffs motion to dismiss defendant’s counterclaim seeking an adjudication that defendant obtained sole ownership of the subject property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The subject property was conveyed to Harold Warren and defendant Rosemarie Pichler by deed dated March 20, 1974, purportedly as tenants by the entirety. However, because Harold Warren and defendant are brother and sister, and not husband and wife, it was impossible for them to take title as tenants by the entirety. Thus, pursuant to EPTL 6-2.2 (a), they took title as tenants in common, with no right of survivorship, no express declaration having been included in the deed that they were taking title as joint tenants. Defendant’s reliance upon EPTL 6-2.2 (d) is misplaced. While that provision provides that a disposition of real property to persons who are not married to one another but who are described in the disposition as husband and wife creates in them a joint tenancy, the 1974 deed does not describe Harold Warren and defendant as husband and wife (cf. Hus v Bosworth, 194 AD2d 386 [1993]; Morgan v Morgan, 111 AD2d 790 [1985]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Saxe, J.P., Marlow, Nardelli, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 241, 803 N.Y.S.2d 553, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-pichler-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack