Opinion
November 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The plaintiff commenced the instant action against her two sons, alleging that she had been defrauded into conveying her home to them. She became the sole owner of the premises upon her husband's death in or about 1966. In or about June 1976 the plaintiff, who cannot read or write English, signed papers conveying the property to her two sons. She was not represented by counsel in connection with the transaction and received no consideration for the conveyance. The court, after a nonjury trial, concluded that the parties had a confidential relationship and set aside the conveyance. We now affirm.
The Judicial Hearing Officer properly found, based on all the evidence, that a confidential relationship existed between the plaintiff mother and her two sons. In light of this relationship, it was the defendants' burden to establish that the gratuitous conveyance of the subject property was not the product of fraud or undue influence (see, Laurenzano v Laurenzano, 156 A.D.2d 430; Matter of Kurtz, 144 A.D.2d 468). We find that the defendants failed to meet their burden, and accordingly, the conveyance was properly set aside. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.