State v. Seventh Regiment Fund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

State v. Seventh Regiment Fund

51 A.D.3d 463, 857 N.Y.S.2d 547

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

DecidedMay 6, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.3d 463 (State v. Seventh Regiment Fund) 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

State v. Seventh Regiment Fund, 51 A.D.3d 463, 857 N.Y.S.2d 547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered October 27, 2006, after a nonjury trial, declaring plaintiff the owner of certain property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court fairly interpreted the evidence in finding that defendant had failed to carry its burden, as the party asserting the statute of limitations, of proving that defense (see New York City Campaign Fin. Bd. v Ortiz, 38 AD3d 75, 80 [2006]). In finding defendant to be a bona fide purchaser of the subject property so that plaintiff’s conversion claim accrued upon demand and refusal in 1996, rather than at an earlier juncture (see 98 NY2d 249, 260-261 [2002]), the court correctly determined that the 1952 transfer of the property was for value, not just with respect to the $1 consideration recited in the bill of sale but also in exchange for the assurance that the property would be properly cared for (see UCC 1-201 [44] [d]; Apfel v Prudential-Bache Sec., 81 NY2d 470, 475-476 [1993]; Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458, 464 [1982]; Hamer v Sidway, 124 NY 538, 545 [1891]). There was no showing that the transfer was not in good faith (see UCC 1-201 [19]), notwithstanding the transferor’s possibly ulterior motive. Nor was it shown that defendant had constructive knowledge of any defect in the transferor’s title; in fact, the testimony and previously submitted affidavit of defendant’s president, defendant’s interrogatory response and the public circumstances of the transfer all indicated to the contrary.

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address defendant’s other contentions. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard F. Braun, J.), entered October 27, 2006, after a nonjury trial, declaring plaintiff the owner of certain property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court fairly interpreted the evidence in finding that defendant had failed to carry its burden, as the party asserting the statute of limitations, of proving that defense (see New York City Campaign Fin. Bd. v Ortiz, 38 AD3d 75, 80 [2006]). In finding defendant to be a bona fide purchaser of the subject property so that plaintiff’s conversion claim accrued upon demand and refusal in 1996, rather than at an earlier juncture (see 98 NY2d 249, 260-261 [2002]), the court correctly determined that the 1952 transfer of the property was for value, not just with respect to the $1 consideration recited in the bill of sale but also in exchange for the assurance that the property would be properly cared for (see UCC 1-201 [44] [d]; Apfel v Prudential-Bache Sec., 81 NY2d 470, 475-476 [1993]; Weiner v McGraw-Hill, Inc., 57 NY2d 458, 464 [1982]; Hamer v Sidway, 124 NY 538, 545 [1891]). There was no showing that the transfer was not in good faith (see UCC 1-201 [19]), notwithstanding the transferor’s possibly ulterior motive. Nor was it shown that defendant had constructive knowledge of any defect in the transferor’s title; in fact, the testimony and previously submitted affidavit of defendant’s president, defendant’s interrogatory response and the public circumstances of the transfer all indicated to the contrary.

In view of the foregoing, it is unnecessary to address defendant’s other contentions. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.3d 463, 857 N.Y.S.2d 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-seventh-regiment-fund-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack