Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: Estate of Helen BUTTA, Deceased. In re Application of Nicholas PAGANI, Petitioner-Respondent, To Compel Delivery of Proceeds, etc., Rosario Butta, Executor, Respondent-Appellant.
Decree, Surrogate's Court, Bronx County (Lee Holzman, S.), entered on or about September 9, 2002, which, inter alia, granted the petition, adjudged the subject account a joint account with right of survivorship, and directed the bank to recognize petitioner as the sole owner, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The testimony of a bank employee that the signature cards used by the bank when the subject account was opened contained right of survivorship language was, in the face of the bank's inability to produce the actual signature card for the account, sufficient proof that such language in fact appeared on the signature card with which the account was opened. It is therefore unnecessary to determine whether the presumption of a joint account with rights of survivorship (Banking Law § 675[b] ) may arise from other proof.
The executor failed to rebut the statutory presumption by clear and convincing evidence that the account was merely one of convenience (see Pinasco v. Ara, 219 A.D.2d 540, 631 N.Y.S.2d 346), especially in light of the decedent's failure upon receipt of her bank statements to object to petitioner's withdrawals from the account. Nor did the executor shift the burden to petitioner to show that the opening of the account was not attributable to undue influence, since the executor failed to make the requisite threshold showing that a confidential relationship existed (compare e.g. Matter of Gordon v. Bialystoker Ctr. & Bikur Cholim, Inc., 45 N.Y.2d 692, 699, 412 N.Y.S.2d 593, 385 N.E.2d 285; Sepulveda v. Aviles, 308 A.D.2d 1, 7, 762 N.Y.S.2d 358; Matter of Mazak, 288 A.D.2d 682, 684, 732 N.Y.S.2d 707).
We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: January 13, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)