Majority
Banking Law § 675 provides that, when a deposit has been made with any banking organization in the name of the depositor and another person “in form to be paid or delivered to either, or the survivor of them, such deposit . . . and any additions thereto made . . . shall become the property of such persons as joint tenants” (Banking Law § 675 [a]). In the
The Supreme Court also appropriately concluded that the familial relationship between the defendant Jean Marie D’Ambrosio and the decedent in this case counterbalanced any legal presumption that the decedent’s decision to withdraw the funds from the subject bank accounts was the product of undue influence (see Matter of Walther, 6 NY2d 49 , 56 [1959]; Matter of Swain, 125 AD2d 574 , 575 [1986]). Thus, the burden of proving undue influence rested with the plaintiff (see Matter of Connelly, 193 AD2d 602 , 602 [1993]). The plaintiff failed to meet his burden by adducing evidence that undue influence was actually utilized (see Matter of Fiumara, 47 NY2d 845 , 846 [1979]; Matter of Walther, 6 NY2d at 55 ; Matter of Chiurazzi, 296 AD2d 406 [2002]). Fisher, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- In re the Estate of Friedman 104 AD2d 366 at 367 p. 575
- In re the Estate of Friedman 64 NY2d 743 p. 575
- Fragetti v. Fragetti 262 AD2d 527 p. 575
- Viggiano v. Viggiano 136 AD2d 630 p. 575
- Brezinski v. Brezinski 94 AD2d 969 p. 575
- In re the Probate of the Will of Walther 6 NY2d 49 at 56 p. 575
- In re the Estate of Swain 125 AD2d 574 at 575 p. 575
- In re the Estate of Connelly 193 AD2d 602 at 602 p. 575
- In re the Estate of Fiumara 47 NY2d 845 at 846 p. 575
- In re the Estate of Chiurazzi 296 AD2d 406 p. 575