Langenbach v. Renna

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Langenbach v. Renna

255 A.D.2d 366, 679 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11791

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 366 (Langenbach v. Renna) 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

Langenbach v. Renna, 255 A.D.2d 366, 679 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11791 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to recover upon a loan, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.H.O.), entered July 10, 1997, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal amount of $25,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We do not agree with the defendant that the judgment against her is contrary to the weight of the evidence, that is, that the court’s finding that the plaintiff had made a loan, not a gift, of $50,000 to the defendant and her then-husband could not have been reached “on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Rigopoulos v State of New York, 236 AD2d 459, 460-461; see also, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 135). On the contrary, the evidence in the record amply establishes that the plaintiff’s tender of the money was a loan, and proof of that loan was not impugned, much less rebutted, by the defendant. The defendant did not establish her claim that this had been a gift to the couple. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to recover upon a loan, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of the judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.H.O.), entered July 10, 1997, as, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the plaintiff and against her in the principal amount of $25,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We do not agree with the defendant that the judgment against her is contrary to the weight of the evidence, that is, that the court’s finding that the plaintiff had made a loan, not a gift, of $50,000 to the defendant and her then-husband could not have been reached “on any fair interpretation of the evidence” (Thoreson v Penthouse Intl., 80 NY2d 490, 495; Rigopoulos v State of New York, 236 AD2d 459, 460-461; see also, Nicastro v Park, 113 AD2d 129, 135). On the contrary, the evidence in the record amply establishes that the plaintiff’s tender of the money was a loan, and proof of that loan was not impugned, much less rebutted, by the defendant. The defendant did not establish her claim that this had been a gift to the couple. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 366, 679 N.Y.S.2d 692, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11791, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langenbach-v-renna-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack