Legal Opinion
Sofsky v. Rosenberg
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 18, 1990PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
In order to defeat the defendants’ motions for summary judgment, plaintiff was required to show a triable issue of fact concerning the delivery of the deed to Rosenberg (CPLR 3212 *930[b]; McGahee v Kennedy, 48 NY2d 832). Rosenberg’s possession of the deed creates a presumption that the deceased grantor had delivered the deed to him before her death (see, Herrmann v Jorgenson, 263 NY 348). While a court may consider attendant circumstances surrounding the transfer of real property when delivery of…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Ten Eyck v. . WhitbeckNew York Court of Appeals · 1898
- McGahee v. KennedyNew York Court of Appeals · 1979
- Herrmann v. JorgensonNew York Court of Appeals · 1934
3Cited by6 opinions
- Abercrombie v. Andrew CollegeDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2006
- Mirvish v. MottNew York Court of Appeals · 2012
- Marlanx Corp. v. LageAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
- In re the Estate of KoesterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Long Island Power Authority v. AndersonNew York Supreme Court · 2011
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.