Borenstein v. Borenstein

New York Supreme Court

Borenstein v. Borenstein

171 Misc. 697, 11 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1819

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 10, 1939

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 171 Misc. 697 (Borenstein v. Borenstein) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Borenstein v. Borenstein, 171 Misc. 697, 11 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1819 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Valente, J.

The evidence presented at the trial of this case clearly established that the defendant David Borenstein intended to place his property beyond the reach of this judgment-creditor. While an action was pending in California, he transferred the business of the D. & D. Electric Co. and stock of the Singer Pressing Machine Corp. for an agreement to be supported for life. An agreement for future support is not a sufficient consideration as against existing creditors for a conveyance of his property by a debtor if the conveyance is of all the debtor’s property, or is of such an amount as will operate to hinder or delay existing creditors or prevent them from enforcing their just claims against him. (Young v. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 374.) Where, however, support has been furnished in good faith under an agreement, the conveyance will be sustained to that extent, especially where the property transferred was at the time of the transfer of very doubtful value and where the support is extended over a very long period of time. But this is the limit of the grantee’s rights in the matter.

Accordingly, the transfer must be declared a nullity, excepting that the estate of Walter Borenstein will be protected to the extent of the deceased’s investments, which are to be determined on an accounting. Submit findings and interlocutory judgment.

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

Valente, J.

The evidence presented at the trial of this case clearly established that the defendant David Borenstein intended to place his property beyond the reach of this judgment-creditor. While an action was pending in California, he transferred the business of the D. & D. Electric Co. and stock of the Singer Pressing Machine Corp. for an agreement to be supported for life. An agreement for future support is not a sufficient consideration as against existing creditors for a conveyance of his property by a debtor if the conveyance is of all the debtor’s property, or is of such an amount as will operate to hinder or delay existing creditors or prevent them from enforcing their just claims against him. (Young v. Heermans, 66 N. Y. 374.) Where, however, support has been furnished in good faith under an agreement, the conveyance will be sustained to that extent, especially where the property transferred was at the time of the transfer of very doubtful value and where the support is extended over a very long period of time. But this is the limit of the grantee’s rights in the matter.

Accordingly, the transfer must be declared a nullity, excepting that the estate of Walter Borenstein will be protected to the extent of the deceased’s investments, which are to be determined on an accounting. Submit findings and interlocutory judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 Misc. 697, 11 N.Y.S.2d 888, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1819, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/borenstein-v-borenstein-nysupct-1939.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack