Bielinski v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bielinski v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

57 A.D.2d 530, 393 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 19, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 530 (Bielinski v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bielinski v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 57 A.D.2d 530, 393 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 2, 1976, directing appellant to turn over funds in its possession, together with interest thereon, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking therefrom the provision for interest, and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. There is no challenge to so much of the judgment as directs a turnover of the funds in the brokerage account which petitioner, his wife and daughter maintained with appellant. Relations between the three family members deteriorated and the brokerage account was frozen. Petitioner’s subsequent, unilateral request that the moneys in the account be placed in an interest bearing account did not create a duty on the part of appellant to make the subject funds income producing. Absent consent from the three individuals or a court directive, appellant was justified in not [531]*531acting, and, accordingly, the award of interest at bank rates from October, 1970 was unjustified. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on June 2, 1976, directing appellant to turn over funds in its possession, together with interest thereon, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of striking therefrom the provision for interest, and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs and without disbursements. There is no challenge to so much of the judgment as directs a turnover of the funds in the brokerage account which petitioner, his wife and daughter maintained with appellant. Relations between the three family members deteriorated and the brokerage account was frozen. Petitioner’s subsequent, unilateral request that the moneys in the account be placed in an interest bearing account did not create a duty on the part of appellant to make the subject funds income producing. Absent consent from the three individuals or a court directive, appellant was justified in not [531]*531acting, and, accordingly, the award of interest at bank rates from October, 1970 was unjustified. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Capozzoli and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 530, 393 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11446, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bielinski-v-merrill-lynch-pierce-fenner-smith-inc-nyappdiv-1977.