You are here: / / PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PROPERTY TRANSFER TO HER BROTHER...
,

PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PROPERTY TRANSFER TO HER BROTHER BY HER MOTHER BASED UPON AN ALLEGATION MOTHER LACKED MENTAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, PLAINTIFF HAD ONLY A POTENTIAL, SPECULATIVE INTEREST IN HER MOTHER’S PROPERTY.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined plaintiff did not have standing to bring an action against her brother based upon allegations her brother, who had a power of attorney for their mother, had been unjustly enriched by the transfer of mother’s property to him:

​

The plaintiff, claiming that the mother lacked mental capacity at the time of the transfer, commenced this action against the defendant asserting causes of action to impose a constructive trust, to recover damages for unjust enrichment, for an accounting, and for “appointment of [a] guardian ad litem” for the mother. The defendant moved, inter alia, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, asserting, among other things, that the plaintiff lacked standing. The Supreme Court denied the motion.

“[S]tanding requires an inquiry into whether the litigant has an interest in the claim at issue in the lawsuit that the law will recognize as a sufficient predicate for determining the issue at the litigant’s request'” … . Thus, to demonstrate standing, a plaintiff must “establish that he or she will actually be harmed by the challenged action, and that the injury is more than conjectural” … . “The rules governing standing help courts separate the tangible from the abstract or speculative injury” … .

Here, the defendant demonstrated his prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the basis that the plaintiff lacked standing to commence this action. “While [the] mother was alive, she had the absolute right to change her intentions regarding the distribution of her assets” … . Accordingly, the plaintiff’s interest in the subject real property and the mother’s other assets was merely a “potential, speculative interest,” insufficient to give rise to standing … . Jacob v Conway, 2017 NY Slip Op 03936, 2nd Dept 5-17-17

 

TRUSTS AND ESTATES (PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PROPERTY TRANSFER TO HER BROTHER BY HER MOTHER BASED UPON AN ALLEGATION MOTHER LACKED MENTAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, PLAINTIFF HAD ONLY A POTENTIAL, SPECULATIVE INTEREST IN HER MOTHER’S PROPERTY)/CIVIL PROCEDURE (STANDING, PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PROPERTY TRANSFER TO HER BROTHER BY HER MOTHER BASED UPON AN ALLEGATION MOTHER LACKED MENTAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, PLAINTIFF HAD ONLY A POTENTIAL, SPECULATIVE INTEREST IN HER MOTHER’S PROPERTY)/STANDING (TRUSTS AND ESTATES,  PLAINTIFF DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST PROPERTY TRANSFER TO HER BROTHER BY HER MOTHER BASED UPON AN ALLEGATION MOTHER LACKED MENTAL CAPACITY AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSFER, PLAINTIFF HAD ONLY A POTENTIAL, SPECULATIVE INTEREST IN HER MOTHER’S PROPERTY)

You might also like
PROCEEDING UNDER REVIEW WAS NOT QUASI-JUDICIAL, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE STANDARD DID NOT APPLY (SECOND DEPT).
Defendant Seeking Summary Judgment Under the Storm in Progress Rule Must Demonstrate It Did Not Undertake Snow Removal During or Immediately After the Storm and Did Not Create or Exacerbate the Dangerous Condition
THE PRE-ANSWER MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CAUSES OF ACTION BASED UPON DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; THE CAUSES OF ACTION WERE PRECLUDED BY CONTRACT PROVISIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE AFFIDAVIT RELIED UPON BY PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION TO PROVE DEFENDANT’S DEFAULT DID NOT IDENTIFY OR ATTACH THE RELEVANT BUSINESS RECORDS AND THEREFORE THE AFFIDAVIT HAD NO PROBATIVE VALUE (SECOND DEPT).
THE RECORD DID NOT SUPPORT PLACEMENT OF THE AUTISTIC CHILD IN A “QUALIFIED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT PROGRAM” (QRTP) AS OPPOSED TO FOSTER CARE; CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
EXPLOSION BENEATH AN ABANDONED AND SEALED MANHOLE OWNED BY THE VILLAGE LIFTED UP PLAINTIFF’S CAR WHICH CAME DOWN ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET, COMPLAINT DISMISSED BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE DEFECT (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER’S PUBLIC ASSISTANCE BENEFITS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TERMINATED, NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY SPECIFIC INSTANCES OF A FAILURE TO COOPERATION WITH EMPLOYMENT TRAINING AND SOME EVIDENCE PRESENTED AT THE HEARING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE, PETITIONER’S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED (SECOND DEPT).
Court Properly Permitted Administration of Medication to Involuntarily Committed Patient

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

WATER DISTRICT’S CONSTRUCTION OF A REPLACEMENT DRINKING WATER SUPPLY TANK... TENANT ASSAULTED BY INTRUDER, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT FORESEEABILITY, ADEQUACY...