From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Keating v. Weinberger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 2, 1990
160 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

April 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff's decedent, James Keating, was the owner of a commercial parking lot located on Northern Boulevard in Flushing, New York. On February 18, 1985, Keating, who was then in his mid-eighties, entered into a lease with Milaman Associates, Inc., and its president, Saul Weinberger. The record establishes that the defendant Weinberger had been Keating's attorney and accountant for many years and that Weinberger and/or his son had drafted the lease in question. The record further discloses that Keating had signed the lease without reading its contents, because he "trusted" Weinberger.

James Keating commenced this action to rescind the lease on the ground of constructive fraud. He alleged that defendant Weinberger, without his knowledge or consent, inserted into the lease a clause which granted the defendants an option to purchase the premises for the sum of $375,000.

We find, as did the trial court, that Keating satisfied his initial burden of proving that a confidential or fiduciary relationship existed between himself and the defendant Weinberger (see, Matter of Gordon v. Bialystoker Center Bikur Cholim, 45 N.Y.2d 692, 698; Matter of Kurtz, 144 A.D.2d 468, 469). As a result, the defendants were required to demonstrate that the agreement entered into by the parties was not the product of fraud or undue influence (see, Matter of Anrig, 73 A.D.2d 947). The defendants failed to sustain this burden. Rather, the record supports the trial court's conclusion that the defendant Weinberger took advantage of his long-term, fiduciary relationship with Keating and that the resulting transaction was tainted by fraud and overreaching on the defendants' part.

We have reviewed the defendants' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Keating v. Weinberger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 2, 1990
160 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Keating v. Weinberger

Case Details

Full title:MAUREEN KEATING, Respondent, v. SAUL WEINBERGER et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Apr 2, 1990

Citations

160 A.D.2d 675 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
553 N.Y.S.2d 452

Citing Cases

Matter of the Estate of Friedman

As to Marc, plaintiff urges that her allegations are sufficient that if proven they would establish that she…

Larosa v. Arbusman

Under the doctrine of constructive fraud, however, "where a fiduciary relationship exists between parties,…