Williams v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Williams v. Williams

285 A.D. 1081, 139 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6717

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

DecidedApril 16, 1955

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D. 1081 (Williams v. Williams) 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

Williams v. Williams, 285 A.D. 1081, 139 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1955).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to impress a trust on real property, judgment dismissing the complaint reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. At the close of appellant’s case, respondents moved for a dismissal of the complaint and for judgment. In a colloquy that followed, the court, after indicating that appellant had not made out a case, said “ Both sides move for judgment. Judgment for the defendants.” The judgment in favor of respondents was, in effect, a holding that appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case. In our opinion, this was error. The evidence adduced, which the court stated it deemed “reliable”, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. We deem the findings of fact numbered 9, 10 and 11 to be contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. We direct a new trial so that respondents may have the opportunity to adduce such testimony as may be available to them. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to impress a trust on real property, judgment dismissing the complaint reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial granted, with costs to appellant to abide the event. At the close of appellant’s case, respondents moved for a dismissal of the complaint and for judgment. In a colloquy that followed, the court, after indicating that appellant had not made out a case, said “ Both sides move for judgment. Judgment for the defendants.” The judgment in favor of respondents was, in effect, a holding that appellant had failed to make out a prima facie case. In our opinion, this was error. The evidence adduced, which the court stated it deemed “reliable”, was sufficient to establish a prima facie case. We deem the findings of fact numbered 9, 10 and 11 to be contrary to the weight of the credible evidence. We direct a new trial so that respondents may have the opportunity to adduce such testimony as may be available to them. Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Ughetta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D. 1081, 139 N.Y.S.2d 734, 1955 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-williams-nyappdiv-1955.