Russell v. Russell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Russell v. Russell

128 A.D.2d 515, 512 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44208

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

DecidedMarch 2, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 515 (Russell v. Russell) 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

Russell v. Russell, 128 A.D.2d 515, 512 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44208 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of adverse claims to [516]*516real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his reply brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), dated April 30, 1985, as, inter alia, canceled a deed dated November 22, 1977, and awarded the plaintiff punitive damages.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It was established at the trial by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff had not knowingly signed the deed giving the defendant sole ownership of the parties’ only significant asset, to wit, their marital home; nor had she knowingly signed a promissory note worth $300,000 over to the defendant. It further clearly appears from the record that a good and valuable consideration had not been given by the defendant for either the deed or the note. Therefore, the deed and note were both properly canceled.

We note that in his reply brief, the defendant expressly abandoned his challenge to so much of the judgment as canceled the promissory note. Finally, no argument has been presented on appeal with respect to the award of punitive damages. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of adverse claims to [516]*516real property, the defendant appeals, as limited by his reply brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Martin, J.), dated April 30, 1985, as, inter alia, canceled a deed dated November 22, 1977, and awarded the plaintiff punitive damages.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It was established at the trial by clear and convincing evidence that the plaintiff had not knowingly signed the deed giving the defendant sole ownership of the parties’ only significant asset, to wit, their marital home; nor had she knowingly signed a promissory note worth $300,000 over to the defendant. It further clearly appears from the record that a good and valuable consideration had not been given by the defendant for either the deed or the note. Therefore, the deed and note were both properly canceled.

We note that in his reply brief, the defendant expressly abandoned his challenge to so much of the judgment as canceled the promissory note. Finally, no argument has been presented on appeal with respect to the award of punitive damages. Mollen, P. J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 515, 512 N.Y.S.2d 448, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44208, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/russell-v-russell-nyappdiv-1987.