In re Barasch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Barasch

267 A.D. 830, 45 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5005

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 1944

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D. 830 (In re Barasch) 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

In re Barasch, 267 A.D. 830, 45 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1944).

Pincite

Opinion

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, adjudging the respondents to be the owners of and directing delivery to them of certain life insurance policies and savings bank books, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The witnesses Wilhelmina and Ralph Barasch were competent to testify as to conversations with the decedent relating to the insurance policies in which the petitioner Israel Barasch was designated as beneficiary. (Ward v. N. T. Life Ins. Co., 225 N. Y. 314.) Since their testimony was competent against that petitioner, it should' not have been excluded, even though it was not competent against the other petitioners, the beneficiaries of the Totten trusts. (Jermyn v. Searing, 225 N. Y. 525, 542.) Moreover, the testimony of petitioners Karp and Schwartz failed to demonstrate that the decedent had made gifts inter vivos to them of the sums deposited by him in banks in his name as trustee for those petitioners. The widow was, therefore, entitled to attack the transfers in trust as illusory. (Krause v. Krause, 285 N. Y. 27; Schnahenberg V. Schnahenberg, 262 App. Div. 234, 237.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ. [See post, p. 905.]

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

Decree of the Surrogate’s Court, Queens County, adjudging the respondents to be the owners of and directing delivery to them of certain life insurance policies and savings bank books, reversed on the law and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event. The witnesses Wilhelmina and Ralph Barasch were competent to testify as to conversations with the decedent relating to the insurance policies in which the petitioner Israel Barasch was designated as beneficiary. (Ward v. N. T. Life Ins. Co., 225 N. Y. 314.) Since their testimony was competent against that petitioner, it should' not have been excluded, even though it was not competent against the other petitioners, the beneficiaries of the Totten trusts. (Jermyn v. Searing, 225 N. Y. 525, 542.) Moreover, the testimony of petitioners Karp and Schwartz failed to demonstrate that the decedent had made gifts inter vivos to them of the sums deposited by him in banks in his name as trustee for those petitioners. The widow was, therefore, entitled to attack the transfers in trust as illusory. (Krause v. Krause, 285 N. Y. 27; Schnahenberg V. Schnahenberg, 262 App. Div. 234, 237.) Hagarty, Acting P. J., Carswell, Johnston, Adel and Lewis, JJ. [See post, p. 905.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D. 830, 45 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1944 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-barasch-nyappdiv-1944.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack