Valenzano v. Valenzano

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

Attorney(S)

Richard Paul Stone, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Donato Valenzano, Weeki Wachee, Florida, Giuseppe Valenzano, Levittown, N.Y., and Addolorata Valenzano, Levittown, N.Y., respondents pro se (one brief filed).

Judges

William F. Mastro

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The plaintiff, Christina Valenzano, and her husband, defendant Donato Valenzano, owned a residence in Bethpage. In 2007, a deed was purportedly signed transferring title of the property to Donato's parents, defendants Giuseppe Valenzano and Addolorata Valenzano. The plaintiff commenced this action seeking, among other relief, cancellation of the deed on the basis that her signature was forged. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion, and the plaintiff appealed.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the complaint seeking cancellation of the deed.
Whether the plaintiff raised a triable issue of fact sufficient to defeat the defendants' summary judgment motion.
Whether the Supreme Court properly excused the defendants' brief delay in filing their motion for summary judgment for good cause.

Arguments of the Parties

Defendants' Arguments

Submitted the signed deed with a certificate of acknowledgment as evidence of the deed's validity.
Presented affidavit and deposition testimony of the notary who personally witnessed the plaintiff sign the deed.
Provided deposition testimony of the witness who signed the deed, asserting customary practice that she witnessed the plaintiff's signature, despite no independent recollection.
Supported their motion with a substantial amount of additional evidence to establish entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Plaintiff's Arguments

Alleged that her signature on the deed was a forgery, challenging the deed's validity.
Failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the defendants' summary judgment motion.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
John Deere Ins. Co. v. GBE/Alasia Corp., 57 A.D.3d 620, 621–622, 869 N.Y.S.2d 198	Standards for establishing prima facie entitlement to summary judgment under CPLR 4538.	Used to confirm that defendants met their burden by submitting authenticated deed and supporting testimony.
Beshara v. Beshara, 51 A.D.3d 837, 838–839, 858 N.Y.S.2d 351	Requirement that opposing party raise a triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.	Applied to determine plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding forgery claim.
Osborne v. Zornberg, 16 A.D.3d 643, 792 N.Y.S.2d 183	Supporting principles for summary judgment and evidentiary standards.	Reinforced the sufficiency of defendants' evidence and lack of triable issues.
Elder v. Elder, 2 A.D.3d 671, 770 N.Y.S.2d 95	Standards for excusing brief delay in filing motions for good cause.	Supported the court's decision to excuse defendants' brief delay in filing their motion.
Popalardo v. Marino, 83 A.D.3d 1029, 922 N.Y.S.2d 158	Standards for excusing delay in motion practice for good cause.	Applied to justify the court's excusal of defendants' delay.
Stimson v. E.M. Cahill Co., Inc., 8 A.D.3d 1004, 778 N.Y.S.2d 585	Good cause standard for excusing late filings.	Confirmed the propriety of excusing defendants' brief delay.
Preshaz v. Przyziazniuk, 51 A.D.3d 752, 858 N.Y.S.2d 290	Requirement to raise triable issue of fact to defeat summary judgment.	Referenced in assessing plaintiff's failure to oppose defendants' motion effectively.
Hoffman v. Kraus, 260 A.D.2d 435, 688 N.Y.S.2d 575	Standards for opposing summary judgment motions.	Used to support the conclusion that plaintiff did not raise triable issues.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the defendants' evidence, which included the signed deed with a certificate of acknowledgment, the notary's affidavit and deposition testimony affirming personal witnessing of the plaintiff's signature, and the witness's deposition testimony indicating customary practice of witnessing the signature. This evidence established defendants' prima facie entitlement to summary judgment as a matter of law. The plaintiff failed to present any evidence creating a triable issue of fact regarding the forgery allegation. Additionally, the court found no error in excusing the defendants' brief delay in filing their summary judgment motion, as there was good cause shown. Consequently, the court affirmed the order granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Holding and Implications

The order granting summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's complaint is affirmed, with costs.

The decision directly resolves the dispute between the parties by dismissing the plaintiff's forgery claim and upholding the validity of the deed transfer. No new legal precedent was established, and the ruling reinforces existing standards for summary judgment and evidentiary requirements in deed-related disputes.

Show full summary ...

Christina VALENZANO, appellant, v. Donato VALENZANO, et al., respondents.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO

Richard Paul Stone, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Donato Valenzano, Weeki Wachee, Florida, Giuseppe Valenzano, Levittown, N.Y., and Addolorata Valenzano, Levittown, N.Y., respondents pro se (one brief filed).
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, A.P.J., PETER B. SKELOS, ANITA R. FLORIO, and L. PRISCILLA HALL, JJ.

In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed to real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Marber, J.), dated January 14, 2011, which, inter alia, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff and her husband, the defendant Donato Valenzano, owned a residence in Bethpage (hereinafter the property). In 2007 the plaintiff and her husband purportedly signed a deed transferring title to the property to the husband's parents, the defendants Giuseppe Valenzano and Addolorata Valenzano. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants seeking, inter alia, a cancellation of the subject deed, alleging that her signature on the deed was a forgery. After completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, offering, in support of the motion, the signed deed with a certificate of acknowledgment, as well as the affidavit and deposition testimony of a notary, in which the notary claimed personally to have witnessed the plaintiff sign the deed. The defendants also submitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the person who signed the deed as a witness, in which the witness asserted that, although she had no independent recollection of the execution of the deed, based upon her signature on the deed, her customary practice dictated that she personally witnessed the plaintiff's signature. Based upon the foregoing, as well as the copious amount of other evidence submitted, the defendants established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law ( seeCPLR 4538; John Deere Ins. Co. v. GBE/Alasia Corp., 57 A.D.3d 620, 621–622, 869 N.Y.S.2d 198;Beshara v. Beshara, 51 A.D.3d 837, 838–839, 858 N.Y.S.2d 351;Osborne v. Zornberg, 16 A.D.3d 643, 792 N.Y.S.2d 183;Elder v. Elder, 2 A.D.3d 671, 770 N.Y.S.2d 95). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact ( cf. Preshaz v. Przyziazniuk, 51 A.D.3d 752, 858 N.Y.S.2d 290;Hoffman v. Kraus, 260 A.D.2d 435, 688 N.Y.S.2d 575).

Moreover, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the defendants' application to excuse, for good cause, the defendants' brief delay in filing their motion for summary judgment ( see Popalardo v. Marino, 83 A.D.3d 1029, 922 N.Y.S.2d 158;Stimson v. E.M. Cahill Co., Inc., 8 A.D.3d 1004, 778 N.Y.S.2d 585).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.