Salemo v. Geller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salemo v. Geller

278 A.D.2d 104, 718 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13069

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

DecidedDecember 14, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 104 (Salemo v. Geller) 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

Salemo v. Geller, 278 A.D.2d 104, 718 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about March 31, 2000, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 20, 2000, which denied defendants’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, as taken from a nonappealable order, without costs.

We affirm the denial of the motion on the ground that there are issues of fact, including the credibility of defendants’ witnesses who submitted affidavits in support of the motion, as to whether defendants defrauded plaintiffs decedent into giving them money and signing legal documents the nature and import of which he did not understand. Without ruling on its applicability or effect at trial, defendants-movants will not be heard to assert CPLR 4519, the Dead Man’s Statute, on their motion for summary judgment dismissal (see, Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307, 313). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.), entered on or about March 31, 2000, which denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 20, 2000, which denied defendants’ motion to reargue, unanimously dismissed, as taken from a nonappealable order, without costs.

We affirm the denial of the motion on the ground that there are issues of fact, including the credibility of defendants’ witnesses who submitted affidavits in support of the motion, as to whether defendants defrauded plaintiffs decedent into giving them money and signing legal documents the nature and import of which he did not understand. Without ruling on its applicability or effect at trial, defendants-movants will not be heard to assert CPLR 4519, the Dead Man’s Statute, on their motion for summary judgment dismissal (see, Phillips v Kantor & Co., 31 NY2d 307, 313). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Ellerin and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 104, 718 N.Y.S.2d 35, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salemo-v-geller-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack