From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Ingram v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1999
262 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Argued May 3, 1999

June 14, 1999

In an action to rescind a deed, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.), dated June 18, 1998, as denied her cross motion pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) and (c) to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for summary judgment.

Stuart M. Mitchell, Nyack, N.Y., for appellant.

Jack Schloss, Pearl River, N.Y., for respondent.

LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and for summary judgment. A triable issue of fact exists as to whether the plaintiff had the requisite donative intent to make a valid inter vivos gift of the subject property to her son Arthur Cunningham, who died several years after the transfer was made ( see, Gruen v. Gruen, 68 N.Y.2d 48, 53; Matter of Szabo, 10 N.Y.2d 94, 98; Chiaro v. Chiaro, 213 A.D.2d 369; Matter of Partos, 203 A.D.2d 578).

Further, CPLR 4519 is not applicable to the plaintiff's statements in her affidavit regarding her donative intent, since they were not based on any conversation, transaction, or communication with her now-deceased son ( see, Friedman v. Sills, 112 A.D.2d 343; Brezinski v. Brezinski, 84 A.D.2d 464).


Summaries of

Ingram v. Cunningham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 14, 1999
262 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Ingram v. Cunningham

Case Details

Full title:RACHEL INGRAM, respondent, v. CATHLEEN O. DAVIDSON CUNNINGHAM, etc.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 14, 1999

Citations

262 A.D.2d 454 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
692 N.Y.S.2d 130

Citing Cases

Shybunko v. Geodesic Homes

The law will presume an acceptance when the gift is of value" ( Matter of Partos, 203 AD2d 578, 578; see…

Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP v. The Moinian Grp.

, coupled with the fact that no measure was taken by plaintiff during all that time to reduce its…