| Valenzano v Valenzano |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06020 [98 AD3d 661] |
| August 22, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Christina Valenzano, Appellant, v Donato Valenzano et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Donato Valenzano, Weeki Wachee, Florida, Giuseppe Valenzano, Levittown, N.Y., andAddolorata Valenzano, Levittown, N.Y., respondents pro se (one brief filed).
In an action, inter alia, to set aside a deed to real property, the plaintiff appeals from an orderof 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 inBethpage (hereinafter the property). In 2007 the plaintiff and her husband purportedly signed adeed transferring title to the property to the husband's parents, the defendants GiuseppeValenzano and Addolorata Valenzano. The plaintiff commenced this action against thedefendants seeking, inter alia, a cancellation of the subject deed, alleging that her signature on thedeed was a forgery. After completion of discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint, offering, in support of the motion, the signed deed with a certificate ofacknowledgment, as well as the affidavit and deposition testimony of a notary, in which thenotary claimed personally to have witnessed the plaintiff sign the deed. The defendants alsosubmitted the transcript of the deposition testimony of the person who signed the deed as awitness, in which the witness asserted that, although she had no independent recollection of theexecution of the deed, based upon her signature on the deed, her customary practice dictated thatshe personally witnessed the plaintiff's signature. Based upon the foregoing, as well as thecopious amount of other evidence submitted, the defendants established their prima facieentitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see CPLR 4538; John Deere Ins. Co. v GBE/AlasiaCorp., 57 AD3d 620, 621-622 [2008]; Beshara v Beshara, 51 AD3d 837, 838-839 [2008]; Osborne v Zornberg, 16 AD3d 643[2005]; Elder v Elder, 2 AD3d671 [2003]). In opposition, the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact (cf. Preshaz v Przyziazniuk, 51 AD3d752 [2008]; Hoffman v Kraus, 260 AD2d 435 [1999]).
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 AD3d1029 [2011]; Stimson v E.M. CahillCo., Inc., 8 AD3d 1004 [2004]).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendants' motion for [*2]summary judgment dismissing the complaint. Mastro, A.P.J.,Skelos, Florio and Hall, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2011 NY Slip Op 30228(U).]