A plaintiff commenced an action, seeking partition of real property (property) held jointly by her and the defendant. The property had been solely owned by the defendant until Dec. 30, 2016, when he deeded the property to himself and the plaintiff, as joint tenants. The defendant asserted that “the transfer was a conditional gift done solely in contemplation of marriage, as was his gift to plaintiff of a…diamond ring in February, 2016.” The defendant counterclaimed for return of the ring, and for rescission of the conveyance of the property to the plaintiff. The defendant moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and for judgment on his counterclaims.

The defendant had purchased the property in 2013. He met the plaintiff approximately a year later, when the plaintiff, a resident of Florida, was visiting New York. The defendant purchased the ring in January 2016, at a jewelry store in New York. He alleged that he gave the plaintiff “the ring as an engagement ring in February, ‘as a symbol of and in sole consideration for, the contemplated marriage between us.’”

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]