Tuma v. Galgano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tuma v. Galgano

11 A.D.3d 449, 782 N.Y.S.2d 747, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11547

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 449 (Tuma v. Galgano) 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

Tuma v. Galgano, 11 A.D.3d 449, 782 N.Y.S.2d 747, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[450]*450In an action, inter alia, to rescind a deed to certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered July 8, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, among other things, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to rescind a deed to certain real property, which deed she had signed and given to the defendant, George Galgano, Jr. After a nonjury trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff did not place any conditions on the delivery of the deed (see Sofsky v Rosenberg, 76 NY2d 927 [1990]; Hoffman v Hoffman, 6 App Div 84 [1896]) or execute the deed as a result of duress (see Gubitz v Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 262 AD2d 451 [1999]; Matter of Garvin, 210 AD2d 332 [1994]) and determined, among other things, that the defendant was entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint. Since this determination was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, the complaint was properly dismissed (see Martinez v Dushko, 7 AD3d 584 [2004]; Kremer v 4-65 48th Ave., 2 AD3d 689 [2003]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

[450]*450In an action, inter alia, to rescind a deed to certain real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nastasi, J.), entered July 8, 2003, which, after a nonjury trial, among other things, dismissed the complaint.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff commenced this action, inter alia, to rescind a deed to certain real property, which deed she had signed and given to the defendant, George Galgano, Jr. After a nonjury trial, the trial court found that the plaintiff did not place any conditions on the delivery of the deed (see Sofsky v Rosenberg, 76 NY2d 927 [1990]; Hoffman v Hoffman, 6 App Div 84 [1896]) or execute the deed as a result of duress (see Gubitz v Security Mut. Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 262 AD2d 451 [1999]; Matter of Garvin, 210 AD2d 332 [1994]) and determined, among other things, that the defendant was entitled to judgment dismissing the complaint. Since this determination was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence, the complaint was properly dismissed (see Martinez v Dushko, 7 AD3d 584 [2004]; Kremer v 4-65 48th Ave., 2 AD3d 689 [2003]).

The plaintiffs remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, without merit. H. Miller, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 449, 782 N.Y.S.2d 747, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuma-v-galgano-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack