Kaminsky v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaminsky v. Smith

40 A.D.2d 522, 334 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4043

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 40 A.D.2d 522 (Kaminsky v. Smith) 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

Kaminsky v. Smith, 40 A.D.2d 522, 334 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4043 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action inter alia for a judgment declaring that two bonds and sums in three Totten Trust savings accounts were the property of Nathan Kaminsky, plaintiff’s intestate, the appeal is from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 14, 1970, in favor of plaintiff’s said intestate, after a nonjury trial and (2) an order of the same court dated June 1, 1970, which inter alia added, as a party plaintiff, said Nathan Kaminsky as administrator of the estate of Jennie Kaminsky. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. [523]*523Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom the first, second, third and fifth decretal paragraphs and substituting therefor a provision dismissing the complaint except for the claim with respect to the State of Israel bond. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. Assuming that Nathan Kaminsky had given his wife, the decedent Jennie Kaminsky, money pursuant to an oral agreement whereunder she promised to deposit the moneys in a joint savings account, the balance to go to the survivor, there is no proof that Mrs. Kaminsky thereafter took those moneys and with them created the Totten Trusts or purchased the United States savings bond. In any event, plaintiff’s evidence concerning the agreement was barred by CPLR 4519. Nor were the Totten Trusts illusory transfers. If the accounts were set up by Mrs. Kaminsky to place her moneys beyond her husband’s distributive share, that motive, for which there is no evidence, does not extinguish the beneficiaries’ interests (Matter of Halpern, 303 N. Y. 33). The record discloses no act of revocation or of disaffirmance of the accounts by Jennie, hence “ the presumption arises that an absolute trust was created as to the balance on hand at the death of the depositor” (Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 126). With respect to the proceeds of the State of Israel bond, the award to Nathan Kaminsky as administrator of his wife’s estate should not be disturbed. The evidence of defendants Rothman and Smith proves that no beneficial interest was to pass to defendant Rothman, the joint tenant with Mrs. Kaminsky in that bond. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In an action inter alia for a judgment declaring that two bonds and sums in three Totten Trust savings accounts were the property of Nathan Kaminsky, plaintiff’s intestate, the appeal is from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated July 14, 1970, in favor of plaintiff’s said intestate, after a nonjury trial and (2) an order of the same court dated June 1, 1970, which inter alia added, as a party plaintiff, said Nathan Kaminsky as administrator of the estate of Jennie Kaminsky. Order affirmed, without costs. No opinion. [523]*523Judgment modified, on the law and the facts, by striking therefrom the first, second, third and fifth decretal paragraphs and substituting therefor a provision dismissing the complaint except for the claim with respect to the State of Israel bond. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs. Assuming that Nathan Kaminsky had given his wife, the decedent Jennie Kaminsky, money pursuant to an oral agreement whereunder she promised to deposit the moneys in a joint savings account, the balance to go to the survivor, there is no proof that Mrs. Kaminsky thereafter took those moneys and with them created the Totten Trusts or purchased the United States savings bond. In any event, plaintiff’s evidence concerning the agreement was barred by CPLR 4519. Nor were the Totten Trusts illusory transfers. If the accounts were set up by Mrs. Kaminsky to place her moneys beyond her husband’s distributive share, that motive, for which there is no evidence, does not extinguish the beneficiaries’ interests (Matter of Halpern, 303 N. Y. 33). The record discloses no act of revocation or of disaffirmance of the accounts by Jennie, hence “ the presumption arises that an absolute trust was created as to the balance on hand at the death of the depositor” (Matter of Totten, 179 N. Y. 112, 126). With respect to the proceeds of the State of Israel bond, the award to Nathan Kaminsky as administrator of his wife’s estate should not be disturbed. The evidence of defendants Rothman and Smith proves that no beneficial interest was to pass to defendant Rothman, the joint tenant with Mrs. Kaminsky in that bond. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Shapiro, Gulotta and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 522, 334 N.Y.S.2d 544, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4043, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaminsky-v-smith-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack