Schlage v. Barrett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schlage v. Barrett

259 A.D.2d 691, 686 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2703

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

DecidedMarch 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 691 (Schlage v. Barrett) 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

Schlage v. Barrett, 259 A.D.2d 691, 686 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2703 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed to certain real property as fraudulently obtained, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), entered December 18, 1997, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants established her intent to make an inter vivos gift by clear and [692]*692convincing evidence (see, Gruen v Gruen, 68 NY2d 48, 53). Additionally, the plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving her incompetence at the time the gift was given (see, Smith v Comas, 173 AD2d 535; see also, Feiden v Feiden, 151 AD2d 889, 890).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed to certain real property as fraudulently obtained, the plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leviss, J.H.O.), entered December 18, 1997, as, after a nonjury trial, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the defendants established her intent to make an inter vivos gift by clear and [692]*692convincing evidence (see, Gruen v Gruen, 68 NY2d 48, 53). Additionally, the plaintiff did not meet her burden of proving her incompetence at the time the gift was given (see, Smith v Comas, 173 AD2d 535; see also, Feiden v Feiden, 151 AD2d 889, 890).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 691, 686 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2703, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlage-v-barrett-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack