McCarthy v. Kaminski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCarthy v. Kaminski

69 A.D.3d 685, 891 N.Y.2d 653

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

DecidedJanuary 12, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 685 (McCarthy v. Kaminski) 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

McCarthy v. Kaminski, 69 A.D.3d 685, 891 N.Y.2d 653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

The defendant Frank Kaminski established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through evidence that the plaintiffs decedent understood that she was conveying to him title to her three houses, reserving a life estate to herself (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the 85-year-old, legally blind decedent had signed the deeds only after having been fraudulently told that the documents she was executing were wills. Accordingly, Kaminski’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him was properly denied.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

The defendant Frank Kaminski established his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law through evidence that the plaintiffs decedent understood that she was conveying to him title to her three houses, reserving a life estate to herself (see Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320, 324 [1986]; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562 [1980]). In opposition, however, the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact as to whether the 85-year-old, legally blind decedent had signed the deeds only after having been fraudulently told that the documents she was executing were wills. Accordingly, Kaminski’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him was properly denied.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Fisher, J.E, Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 685, 891 N.Y.2d 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccarthy-v-kaminski-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack