Denberg v. Frischman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Denberg v. Frischman

31 A.D.2d 916, 299 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4349

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 916 (Denberg v. Frischman) 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

Denberg v. Frischman, 31 A.D.2d 916, 299 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered September 11, 1968, modified on the facts and the law to reinstate stay of trial .and to strike case from the calendar, and otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant. A stay of the trial of this action was 'heretofore granted until defendant complied with certain terms of a separation agreement. The terms had to do with certain insurance policies. The purported compliance does not go to the extent .provided for in the agreement. Defendant ¡must divest herself of the right to borrow on the policies as well as the right .to change ¡beneficiaries or in any way deprive the children .of their right to realize on the policies should they or any of them outlive the defendant. Settle order on notice. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered September 11, 1968, modified on the facts and the law to reinstate stay of trial .and to strike case from the calendar, and otherwise affirmed, with $30 costs and disbursements to appellant. A stay of the trial of this action was 'heretofore granted until defendant complied with certain terms of a separation agreement. The terms had to do with certain insurance policies. The purported compliance does not go to the extent .provided for in the agreement. Defendant ¡must divest herself of the right to borrow on the policies as well as the right .to change ¡beneficiaries or in any way deprive the children .of their right to realize on the policies should they or any of them outlive the defendant. Settle order on notice. Concur — Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Markewich and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 916, 299 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/denberg-v-frischman-nyappdiv-1969.