Max Pellegrini v. Brock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Max Pellegrini v. Brock

65 A.D.3d 971, 885 N.Y.S.2d 413

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 65 A.D.3d 971 (Max Pellegrini v. Brock) 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

Max Pellegrini v. Brock, 65 A.D.3d 971, 885 N.Y.S.2d 413 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered January 12, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action where plaintiffs seek, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the monies they transferred to defendant Enrico Pellegrini and defendant-respondent constituted a loan rather than a gift, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“On a motion for summary judgment, the court should accept as true the evidence submitted by the opposing party” (O’Sullivan v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. at Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 217 AD2d 98, 101 [1995]). Here, defendant-respondent submitted evidence in admissible form which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the money at issue was a gift or a loan, including, inter alia, an affidavit from a nonparty who said that plaintiff Roberta Pellegrini had told her that plaintiffs had given defendants money to buy a house.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold B. Beeler, J.), entered January 12, 2009, which, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, in this action where plaintiffs seek, inter alia, a declaratory judgment that the monies they transferred to defendant Enrico Pellegrini and defendant-respondent constituted a loan rather than a gift, denied plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

“On a motion for summary judgment, the court should accept as true the evidence submitted by the opposing party” (O’Sullivan v Presbyterian Hosp. in City of N.Y. at Columbia Presbyt. Med. Ctr., 217 AD2d 98, 101 [1995]). Here, defendant-respondent submitted evidence in admissible form which raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the money at issue was a gift or a loan, including, inter alia, an affidavit from a nonparty who said that plaintiff Roberta Pellegrini had told her that plaintiffs had given defendants money to buy a house.

We have considered plaintiffs’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.E, Saxe, Moskowitz, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.3d 971, 885 N.Y.S.2d 413, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/max-pellegrini-v-brock-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack