From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sherman v. Georgopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1981
84 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Opinion

November 23, 1981


In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for fraud, misrepresentation, conversion, and moneys had and received, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.), entered December 9, 1980, which, after a nonjury trial, awarded the plaintiff the principal sum of $27,200. Judgment reversed, on the law, and new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. No findings of fact have been considered. The instant action concerns a dispute as to funds which had been deposited in a joint bank account in the name of the parties. Since the plaintiff sought to rebut the presumption that the joint bank account created a joint tenancy as to the funds deposited (see Banking Law, § 675; Matter of Kleinberg v Heller, 38 N.Y.2d 836), the burden was upon her to introduce "direct proof to rebut the presumption that a valid joint tenancy had been intended and created [and/or] * * * substantial circumstantial proof sufficient to support an inference that the joint account had been opened for convenience only" (see Matter of Murphy, 23 A.D.2d 866, 867). Inasmuch as the trial court erroneously assigned the burden of proof to the defendant, a new trial is required. Hopkins, J.P., Mangano, Rabin and Cohalan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sherman v. Georgopoulos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 23, 1981
84 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)
Case details for

Sherman v. Georgopoulos

Case Details

Full title:JACQUELINE SHERMAN, Respondent, v. PETER GEORGOPOULOS, Appellant

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

Date published: Nov 23, 1981

Citations

84 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 1981)

Citing Cases

Wacikowski v. Wacikowski

Plaintiff asserts that she never intended to give her son a present beneficial interest in this account…

Viggiano v. Viggiano

The burden of proof to rebut the presumption that a joint account was intended rather than a convenience…