Conklin v. Conklin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Conklin v. Conklin

79 A.D.2d 646, 434 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14011

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.2d 646 (Conklin v. Conklin) 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

Conklin v. Conklin, 79 A.D.2d 646, 434 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 19, 1979, as, in granting him a judgment for one half of the parties’ joint bank accounts, failed to award him interest or costs. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements, and it is determined that plaintiff is entitled to interest on his portion of the joint bank accounts which was withdrawn by the defendant wife, and to costs. The case is remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate amended judgment in accordance herewith. Plaintiff should have been awarded interest on his share of the joint bank accounts which was withdrawn by defendant and costs. As stated in Markland v Markland (67 AD2d 940), “Since [she] has had the use of said funds, that is only fair and equitable.” Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered September 19, 1979, as, in granting him a judgment for one half of the parties’ joint bank accounts, failed to award him interest or costs. Judgment reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and the facts, with $50 costs and disbursements, and it is determined that plaintiff is entitled to interest on his portion of the joint bank accounts which was withdrawn by the defendant wife, and to costs. The case is remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate amended judgment in accordance herewith. Plaintiff should have been awarded interest on his share of the joint bank accounts which was withdrawn by defendant and costs. As stated in Markland v Markland (67 AD2d 940), “Since [she] has had the use of said funds, that is only fair and equitable.” Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.2d 646, 434 N.Y.S.2d 35, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/conklin-v-conklin-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack