From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rivera v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

In Rivera v. Hernandez, 277 AD2d 301, 715 NYS2d 749 [2nd Dept. 2000]), the Court determined that the plaintiff, a real property owner, who had owned the property jointly with the defendant, but who claimed that his acknowledged signature on a deed transferring ownership of the property as to the defendant alone was forged, did not establish the transfer was invalid, where plaintiff failed to provide proof of forgery so clear as to amount to a moral certainty.

Summary of this case from Gargagliano v. Gargagliano

Opinion

Submitted September 25, 2000.

November 13, 2000.

In an action, inter alia, for the partition of real property and an accounting, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cutrona, J.), dated April 3, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial, is in favor of the defendant and against him, and determined that the subject property was owned by the defendant.

Norych Tallis, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Andrew C. Tallis of counsel), for appellant.

Before: LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the plaintiff's notice of appeal from the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the same court, dated June 30, 1999, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520[c]); and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs and disbursements.

The plaintiff and the defendant jointly owned the subject property. The plaintiff claimed that his acknowledged signature on a deed transferring ownership of the property to the defendant alone was forged. However, the plaintiff failed to provide proof of forgery "so clear and convincing as to amount to a moral certainty" (Albany County Sav. Bank v. McCarty, 149 N.Y. 71, 80; see, Lum v. Antonelli, 102 A.D.2d 258, 261, affd 64 N.Y.2d 1158; see also, CPLR 4538). Therefore, the Supreme Court properly determined that the property was owned by the defendant.


Summaries of

Rivera v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

In Rivera v. Hernandez, 277 AD2d 301, 715 NYS2d 749 [2nd Dept. 2000]), the Court determined that the plaintiff, a real property owner, who had owned the property jointly with the defendant, but who claimed that his acknowledged signature on a deed transferring ownership of the property as to the defendant alone was forged, did not establish the transfer was invalid, where plaintiff failed to provide proof of forgery so clear as to amount to a moral certainty.

Summary of this case from Gargagliano v. Gargagliano
Case details for

Rivera v. Hernandez

Case Details

Full title:SERAFIN RIVERA, APPELLANT, v. MARITZA HERNANDEZ, RESPONDENT

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 301 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
715 N.Y.S.2d 749

Citing Cases

Paciello v. Graffeo

"[A] certificate of acknowledgment should not be overthrown upon evidence of a doubtful character, such as…

In re Travers

We affirm. Contrary to the appellant's contention, the petitioner demonstrated by evidence "`so clear and…