Isacowitz v. Isacowitz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Isacowitz v. Isacowitz

8 A.D.2d 837, 190 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7908

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

DecidedJune 19, 1959

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.2d 837 (Isacowitz v. Isacowitz) 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

Isacowitz v. Isacowitz, 8 A.D.2d 837, 190 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7908 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for the return of certain bonds, allegedly converted by the defendant, and all interest declared and paid on the bonds from the date of conversion, or for other relief, the defendant, in his answer, alleges that the plaintiff, his mother, gave the bonds to his sons and that he is holding the bonds as trustee for his sons. Defendant served an interpleading complaint bringing in his sons as adverse claimants, and their answer thereto alleged ownership of the bonds by way of gift. The defendant and his sons, by their guardian ad litem, appeal from an order which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the interpleading complaint upon the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to entitle the defendant to interplead pursuant to the provisions of section 285 of the Civil Practice Act, and (2) dismissed the answer interposed thereto. Order reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The sons as claimants would not be concluded by an adverse determination against the defendant, who is sued as an individual. The sons claim that plaintiff is the settlor of a trust created for them. The existence of the trust is at stake between plaintiff and the inter-pleaded defendants. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for the return of certain bonds, allegedly converted by the defendant, and all interest declared and paid on the bonds from the date of conversion, or for other relief, the defendant, in his answer, alleges that the plaintiff, his mother, gave the bonds to his sons and that he is holding the bonds as trustee for his sons. Defendant served an interpleading complaint bringing in his sons as adverse claimants, and their answer thereto alleged ownership of the bonds by way of gift. The defendant and his sons, by their guardian ad litem, appeal from an order which (1) granted plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the interpleading complaint upon the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to entitle the defendant to interplead pursuant to the provisions of section 285 of the Civil Practice Act, and (2) dismissed the answer interposed thereto. Order reversed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. The sons as claimants would not be concluded by an adverse determination against the defendant, who is sued as an individual. The sons claim that plaintiff is the settlor of a trust created for them. The existence of the trust is at stake between plaintiff and the inter-pleaded defendants. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldoek, Murphy, Ughetta and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.2d 837, 190 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1959 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/isacowitz-v-isacowitz-nyappdiv-1959.