Place v. Cundaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Place v. Cundaro

34 A.D.2d 698, 309 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087

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

DecidedApril 20, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 698 (Place v. Cundaro) 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

Place v. Cundaro, 34 A.D.2d 698, 309 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Fulton County, granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment for the partition of certain real property located in Johnstown, New York. The property involved was conveyed by decedent by warranty deed to himself and appellant, “his wife, as tenants by the entirety”. Undisputably the decedent and appellant were at no time legally married. Special Term, invoking the statutory presumption of section 6-2.2 of the Estates Powers and Trusts Law, found that the language of the deed failed to manifest the requisite intent to establish a joint tenancy, and thus held that a tenancy in common was created. Unquestionably, the conveyance did not create a tenancy by the entirety (e.g., Perrin v. Harrington, 146 App. Div. 292, 294) and when a tenancy by the entirety fails because there exists no marriage between the parties “a tenancy in common has been consistently held to result” (Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 25 A D 2d 698). Only where there is express language of survivorship in the granting of habendum clauses of the conveyance (Gaza v. Gaza, 247 App. Div. 837, affd. 272 N. Y. 617; Giudici v. Lofaso, 199 Mise. 401) or specific language negating an intent to create a tenancy in common (Glearo v. Cook, 11 Mise 2d 916) can a joint tenancy instead he found. Such is not the ease in the present action. Nor can an intent to create a joint tenancy be established by extrinsic evidence, such as the joint tax forms and other proof of marital conduct that appellant has offered (Petchanuk v. Mohlsick, 123 N. Y. S. 2d 382; see, also, Perrin v. Harrington, supra, p. 294). Accordingly, the partition was properly decreed. On this appeal no question was raised as to the right of the administratrix to maintain the action. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

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

Reynolds, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Fulton County, granting respondent’s motion for summary judgment for the partition of certain real property located in Johnstown, New York. The property involved was conveyed by decedent by warranty deed to himself and appellant, “his wife, as tenants by the entirety”. Undisputably the decedent and appellant were at no time legally married. Special Term, invoking the statutory presumption of section 6-2.2 of the Estates Powers and Trusts Law, found that the language of the deed failed to manifest the requisite intent to establish a joint tenancy, and thus held that a tenancy in common was created. Unquestionably, the conveyance did not create a tenancy by the entirety (e.g., Perrin v. Harrington, 146 App. Div. 292, 294) and when a tenancy by the entirety fails because there exists no marriage between the parties “a tenancy in common has been consistently held to result” (Hildebrand v. Hildebrand, 25 A D 2d 698). Only where there is express language of survivorship in the granting of habendum clauses of the conveyance (Gaza v. Gaza, 247 App. Div. 837, affd. 272 N. Y. 617; Giudici v. Lofaso, 199 Mise. 401) or specific language negating an intent to create a tenancy in common (Glearo v. Cook, 11 Mise 2d 916) can a joint tenancy instead he found. Such is not the ease in the present action. Nor can an intent to create a joint tenancy be established by extrinsic evidence, such as the joint tax forms and other proof of marital conduct that appellant has offered (Petchanuk v. Mohlsick, 123 N. Y. S. 2d 382; see, also, Perrin v. Harrington, supra, p. 294). Accordingly, the partition was properly decreed. On this appeal no question was raised as to the right of the administratrix to maintain the action. Order affirmed, without costs. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Reynolds, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 698, 309 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/place-v-cundaro-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack