Ruck v. Ruck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ruck v. Ruck

19 A.D.2d 809, 243 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3136

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.2d 809 (Ruck v. Ruck) 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

Ruck v. Ruck, 19 A.D.2d 809, 243 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3136 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event. The evidence received is ambiguous as to the true nature of the transactions between plaintiff and decedent. Plaintiff attempted to present the transaction as a simple loan, whereas the evidence indicates a more complex noncash arrangement, in which the alleged corporate debts owed plaintiff and the alleged debt owed by decedent to one of the corporations wrere converted into an alleged debt from decedent to plaintiff. In view of the cautious offering of proof, it is not clear that the documented transactions represented genuine ones, or that plaintiff parted with value. Under the circumstances plaintiff has not established his claim against decedent’s estate by the required preponderance of evidence (see Matter of Shermam, 227 1ST. Y. 350, 353). However, a new trial is appropriate under these circumstances since plaintiff may be able to establish his claim if afforded another opportunity, and if a complete disclosure of the facts is forthcoming. Concur —• Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Decree unanimously reversed, on the law and the facts and in the exercise of discretion, and a new trial is granted, with costs to abide the event. The evidence received is ambiguous as to the true nature of the transactions between plaintiff and decedent. Plaintiff attempted to present the transaction as a simple loan, whereas the evidence indicates a more complex noncash arrangement, in which the alleged corporate debts owed plaintiff and the alleged debt owed by decedent to one of the corporations wrere converted into an alleged debt from decedent to plaintiff. In view of the cautious offering of proof, it is not clear that the documented transactions represented genuine ones, or that plaintiff parted with value. Under the circumstances plaintiff has not established his claim against decedent’s estate by the required preponderance of evidence (see Matter of Shermam, 227 1ST. Y. 350, 353). However, a new trial is appropriate under these circumstances since plaintiff may be able to establish his claim if afforded another opportunity, and if a complete disclosure of the facts is forthcoming. Concur —• Botein, P. J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.2d 809, 243 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3136, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ruck-v-ruck-nyappdiv-1963.