Opinion
November 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
We do not agree with the defendant that the judgment against her is contrary to the weight of the evidence, that is, that the court's finding that the plaintiff had made a loan, not a gift, of $50,000 to the defendant and her then-husband could not have been reached "on any fair interpretation of the evidence" ( Thoreson v. Penthouse Intl., 80 N.Y.2d 490, 495; Rigopoulos v. State of New York, 236 A.D.2d 459, 460-461; see also, Nicastro v. Park, 113 A.D.2d 129, 135). On the contrary, the evidence in the record amply establishes that the plaintiff's tender of the money was a loan, and proof of that loan was not impugned, much less rebutted, by the defendant. The defendant did not establish her claim that this had been a gift to the couple.
Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Luciano, JJ., concur.