Essex v. Essex

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Essex v. Essex

282 A.D. 715, 122 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778

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

DecidedJune 15, 1953

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 282 A.D. 715 (Essex v. Essex) 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

Essex v. Essex, 282 A.D. 715, 122 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to set aside a deed made by the defendant S X Laboratories, Inc., to defendant Ruby Kaura, alleged to have been made in fraud of respondent, [716]*716wife of the defendant Webster Burton Essex, defendants appeal from the judgment in favor of respondent. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. On the evidence the trial court could find that respondent was a creditor of appellant Essex by reason of the separation agreement between respondent and him; that the latter was in fact the owner of the premises; that the deed by his personal corporation to the appellant Ruby Kaura was fraudulent as to the respondent, and that there was intentional fraud. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ. [See post, p. 878.]

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

In an action to set aside a deed made by the defendant S X Laboratories, Inc., to defendant Ruby Kaura, alleged to have been made in fraud of respondent, [716]*716wife of the defendant Webster Burton Essex, defendants appeal from the judgment in favor of respondent. Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. On the evidence the trial court could find that respondent was a creditor of appellant Essex by reason of the separation agreement between respondent and him; that the latter was in fact the owner of the premises; that the deed by his personal corporation to the appellant Ruby Kaura was fraudulent as to the respondent, and that there was intentional fraud. Present — Carswell, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MacCrate, Schmidt and Beldoek, JJ. [See post, p. 878.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D. 715, 122 N.Y.S.2d 396, 1953 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4778, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/essex-v-essex-nyappdiv-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack