Laney v. Siewert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Laney v. Siewert

26 A.D.3d 194, 810 N.Y.S.2d 436

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

DecidedFebruary 9, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 26 A.D.3d 194 (Laney v. Siewert) 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

Laney v. Siewert, 26 A.D.3d 194, 810 N.Y.S.2d 436 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered February 17, 2005, which, in an action for partition and fraud, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to dismiss the cause of action for fraud, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The parties took title to the shares allocated to the subject apartment in 1985 as tenants in common. While defendant’s evidence that he paid virtually all of the apartment’s purchase price and carrying costs is sufficient to rebut the presumption that the parties are entitled to an equal number of shares on partition (cf. Estate of Menon v Menon, 303 AD2d 622, 623 [2003]; McVicker v Sarma, 163 AD2d 721, 722 [1990]), such evidence does not resolve what, if anything, plaintiff’s share should be. That issue is not amenable to summary judgment [195]*195treatment, requiring as it does consideration of the various equities (see Ranninger v Pevsner, 306 AD2d 20 [2003], citing, inter alia, McVicker), including the nature of the parties’ relationship and whether, as plaintiff claims, defendant intended his disparate contributions to be a gift (see Rettig v Holler, 1 Misc 3d 904[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51501[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2003]). The cause of action for fraud is dismissed on consent of plaintiffs attorney at oral argument. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Werner Kornreich, J.), entered February 17, 2005, which, in an action for partition and fraud, inter alia, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, to dismiss the cause of action for fraud, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

The parties took title to the shares allocated to the subject apartment in 1985 as tenants in common. While defendant’s evidence that he paid virtually all of the apartment’s purchase price and carrying costs is sufficient to rebut the presumption that the parties are entitled to an equal number of shares on partition (cf. Estate of Menon v Menon, 303 AD2d 622, 623 [2003]; McVicker v Sarma, 163 AD2d 721, 722 [1990]), such evidence does not resolve what, if anything, plaintiff’s share should be. That issue is not amenable to summary judgment [195]*195treatment, requiring as it does consideration of the various equities (see Ranninger v Pevsner, 306 AD2d 20 [2003], citing, inter alia, McVicker), including the nature of the parties’ relationship and whether, as plaintiff claims, defendant intended his disparate contributions to be a gift (see Rettig v Holler, 1 Misc 3d 904[A], 2003 NY Slip Op 51501[U] [Sup Ct, NY County 2003]). The cause of action for fraud is dismissed on consent of plaintiffs attorney at oral argument. Concur—Tom, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

26 A.D.3d 194, 810 N.Y.S.2d 436, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/laney-v-siewert-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack