undue influence claim in New York

2026Defendants also failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the undue influence claim ( see Matter of Kotick v Shvachko , 130 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2015]).

2026While she asserts that she returned $250,000 to Okolie to give to Boise, there is no conclusive evidence that the $250,000 was ever returned to Boise.</p> <p> Defendants also failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the undue influence claim (<i>see Matter of Kotick v Shvachko</i>, 130 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2015]).

2023Circumstances that may be considered in determining the existence of undue influence include whether the result of the decedent's changed directive concerning the disposition of property following her death is "unnatural or the result of an unexplained departure from a previously expressed intention" ( Matter of Walther , 6 NY2d 49, 55 [1959]; see Matter of Elmore , 42 AD2d 240, 241 [3d Dept 1973]).

1979In the absence of evidence of a substantial nature inconsistent with any inference to the contrary, the Surrogate properly refused to submit the undue influence claim to the jury (see Matter of Walther, 6 NY2d 49 ).

2023Circumstances that may be considered in determining the existence of undue influence include whether the result of the decedent's changed directive concerning the disposition of property following her death is "unnatural or the result of an unexplained departure from a previously expressed intention" ( Matter of Walther , 6 NY2d 49, 55 [1959]; see Matter of Elmore , 42 AD2d 240, 241 [3d Dept 1973]).

2023Circumstances that may be considered in determining the existence of undue influence include whether the result of the decedent's changed directive concerning the disposition of property following her death is "unnatural or the result of an unexplained departure from a previously expressed intention" ( Matter of Walther , 6 NY2d 49, 55 [1959]; see Matter of Elmore , 42 AD2d 240, 241 [3d Dept 1973]).

2023At this pre-discovery stage, and given that key information is within defendant's sole knowledge ( see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc ., 10 NY3d 486, 491-492 [2008]), we find that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the elements of an undue influence claim, which are motive, opportunity, and the actual exercise of undue influence ( see Matter of Kotick v Shvachko , 130 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2015]).

2023At this pre-discovery stage, and given that key information is within defendant's sole knowledge ( see Pludeman v Northern Leasing Sys., Inc ., 10 NY3d 486, 491-492 [2008]), we find that plaintiff sufficiently pleaded the elements of an undue influence claim, which are motive, opportunity, and the actual exercise of undue influence ( see Matter of Kotick v Shvachko , 130 AD3d 472, 473 [1st Dept 2015]).

2026By virtue of a joint venture, a confidential relationship existed between Weitzman and Boise ( see Rocchio v Biondi , 40 AD3d 615, 616 [2d Dept 2007]).

2026By virtue of a joint venture, a confidential relationship existed between Weitzman and Boise (<i>see</i> <i>Rocchio v Biondi</i>, 40 AD3d 615, 616 [2d Dept 2007]).

2008Relying on Matter of Walther ( 6 NY2d 49 [1959]), the court reasoned that “[a] testator acting upon ‘ties of attachment arising from consanguinity, or the memory of kind acts and friendly offices,’ is not indicative of undue influence” (id. at 420, quoting Walther at 53, quoting Children’s Aid Socy. of City of N.Y. v Loveridge, 70 NY 387, 394 [1877]).

2008Noting that it was “[g]ranting petitioner every presumption applicable to a pre-answer motion to dismiss,” the court held that the undue influence claim was properly dismissed because “[t]he record reflects no more than decedent’s choice of benefitting her niece . . . after decedent’s brother . . . had provided hospice care in his own home” ( 36 AD3d 419, 419 [2007]).