Shawy v. Bielefeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shawy v. Bielefeld

254 A.D.2d 106, 679 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663

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

DecidedOctober 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 106 (Shawy v. Bielefeld) 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

Shawy v. Bielefeld, 254 A.D.2d 106, 679 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about May 11, 1995, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motions were properly granted since the affidavit of plaintiffs attorney, which asserts that certain signatures on relevant documents were not genuine, has no probative value (Israelson v Rubin, 20 AD2d 668, affd 14 NY2d 887), and the affidavit of the deceased insured’s sister, which does not address the genuineness of the insured’s signature on the 1984 controlling designation of his wife as the sole primary beneficiary under the subject policy, should be deemed to admit the genuineness of that signature (Kuehne & Nagel v Baiden, 36 NY2d 539, 544). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Lebedeff, J.), entered on or about May 11, 1995, which granted defendants’ motions for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The motions were properly granted since the affidavit of plaintiffs attorney, which asserts that certain signatures on relevant documents were not genuine, has no probative value (Israelson v Rubin, 20 AD2d 668, affd 14 NY2d 887), and the affidavit of the deceased insured’s sister, which does not address the genuineness of the insured’s signature on the 1984 controlling designation of his wife as the sole primary beneficiary under the subject policy, should be deemed to admit the genuineness of that signature (Kuehne & Nagel v Baiden, 36 NY2d 539, 544). Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 106, 679 N.Y.S.2d 286, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shawy-v-bielefeld-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack