MATTER OF REICH
49 A.D.2d 858 (1975)
In the Matter of Arthur Reich, as Executor of John A. Dunbar, Deceased, Respondent. Ruth D. Flood, Appellant
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, First Department.
October 23, 1975
Concur — Markewich, J. P., Kupferman, Capozzoli, Lane and Nunez, JJ.
The petition in this proceeding alleges that Ruth Dunbar Flood is wrongfully in possession of objects d'art belonging to the estate of her father, John Atkinson Dunbar. Respondent received a letter in August, 1969 from her father's attorney demanding return of certain items of personalty. Respondent rejected the claim. In April, 1970 her father requested $2,500 from her, which she gave him "in full settlement of any and all claims" against her. In addition, the father signed a release. Between 1970 and the father's death in 1974, he took no further action to recover these items. In September, 1974, the executor, in marshaling the assets of the estate, claimed that the personal property in question belonged to the father and should be returned. After joinder of issue, which included a counterclaim by the daughter in the amount of $29,238.50 for moneys advanced to the decedent and for payment of his funeral expenses, the daughter moved for summary judgment. The motion was denied by the Surrogate. We would reverse. It is patently clear that, on a motion such as this, the parties must lay bare their evidentiary proof in order for the court to determine if a bona fide factual dispute exists warranting a plenary suit. The respondent submitted such proof in the form of documentary evidence which included the release and the canceled check. The estate, on the other hand, submitted no proof of an evidentiary nature. The estate sought recovery of the art objects in question on a theory of fraud and duress, the deceased having executed a written release of any claims against his daughter in consideration of her payment to him of $2,500. The art work
Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.
- No Cases Found