You are here: / / “Confidential Relationship” With Decedent Not Demonstrated...

“Confidential Relationship” With Decedent Not Demonstrated As a Matter of Law

The Third Department determined Supreme Court properly ruled that petitioners had not demonstrated, as a matter of law,  the existence of a confidential relationship between the decedent and respondent. Where a confidential relationship is demonstrated, the stronger party has the burden of showing by clear and convinciing evidence that a particular transaction from which the stronger party benefitted was not the result of undue influence.  The court explained the operative criteria for a confidential relationship:

A confidential relationship is one that is “of such a character as to render it certain that [the parties] do not deal on terms of equality” … . Such inequality may occur from either one party’s “superior knowledge of the matter derived from a fiduciary relation, or from an overmastering influence” or from the other’s “weakness, dependence, or trust justifiably reposed” on the stronger party … .

The limited issue presented on this appeal is whether Supreme Court erred when it declined to find, as a matter of law, that there was a confidential relationship between respondent and decedent. The basis for petitioners’ claim that such a relationship existed was, in part, the familial relationship between respondent and decedent. A familial relationship, however, is not necessarily a confidential relationship … . Importantly, the existence of a confidential relationship is ordinarily a factual determination based upon “evidence of other facts or circumstances showing inequality or controlling influence”… . Matter of Bonczyk v Williams, 2014 NY Slip Op 05231, 3rd Dept 7-10-14

 

You might also like
General Municipal Law 205-a and Strict Products Liability Causes of Action Brought by Firefighter Injured During a Fire Survive Defendants’ Summary Judgment Motions
ALTHOUGH THE RELEVANT DECISION [PEOPLE VS RUDOLPH] CAME DOWN AFTER DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED, THE DECISION CAME DOWN BEFORE DEFENDANT’S APPELLATE PROCESS WAS COMPLETE; THEREFORE DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO CONSIDERATION WHETHER HE SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; SENTENCE VACATED AND MATTER REMITTED FOR RESENTENCING (SECOND DEPT).
WHEN CONFRONTED WITH AN ARMED SUSPECT, DEFENDANT POLICE OFFICER FIRED HER WEAPON AND STRUCK PLAINTIFF, ANOTHER POLICE OFFICER; THE TWO POLICE OFFICERS, WHO WORKED FOR DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES, WERE DEEMED CO-EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO A POLICE MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT; THEREFORE PLAINTIFF’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION WAS PRECLUDED BY GENERAL OBLIGATONS LAW 11-106 (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE IN THIS MENTAL HYGIENE LAW PROCEEDING SHOULD NOT HAVE HELD THE HEARING ON WHETHER APPELLANT WAS AN INCAPACITATED PERSON IN HER ABSENCE WITHOUT FIRST FINDING SHE COULD NOT MEANINGFULLY PARTICIPATE; IN ADDITION, COUNSEL SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPOINTED FOR APPELLANT BECAUSE SHE WAS CONTESTING THE GUARDIANSHIP PETITION (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENSE COUNSEL ALLOWED EVIDENCE PRECLUDED BY A SANDOVAL RULING TO COME IN, AND DID NOT OBJECT TO HEARSAY WHICH REFUTED DEFENDANT’S ALIBI; DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
PAROLEES DO NOT SURRENDER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES; HERE THE SEARCH BY PAROLE OFFICERS WAS BASED UPON A TIP FROM DEFENDANT’S MOTHER; THE SEARCH WAS DEEMED SUBSTANTIALLY RELATED TO THE PAROLE OFFICERS’ DUTIES; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
CLAIMANT PROVED HE WAS EMPLOYED BY A COMPANY WHICH DID NOT HAVE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND WHICH REFUSED TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, GENERAL CONTRACTOR OBLIGATED TO PAY THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AWARDS (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION (DEC) AND THE PERMIT APPLICANT CAME TO AN AGREEMENT, A REQUEST BY AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS FOR FURTHER ADJUDICATION OF ISSUES RELATING TO THE APPROVAL OF TWO DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE CATSKILLS WAS PROPERLY DENIED BY THE DEC COMMISSIONER (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Defendant Failed to Prove Three Elements of Adverse Possession New York’s Seatbelt Defense Applies to Action Stemming from Pennsylvania...