Karp v. Karp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Karp v. Karp

6 A.D.2d 1055, 179 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1958

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.2d 1055 (Karp v. Karp) 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

Karp v. Karp, 6 A.D.2d 1055, 179 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1958).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover a fund on deposit in respondent bank in a joint account [1056]*1056in the names of appellant and the individual respondent, his son, and for other relief, the appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The record shows that in 1952 appellant opened an account with respondent bank in his own name and that the entire fund in question was accumulated by him in the ensuing years. The record further shows that in November, 1957 he had the account changed to be payable to himself in trust for another son, and that in March, 1958 when he accompanied his son, the individual respondent, to the respondent bank and signed the documents converting the account into a joint account for himself and said son, he did not intend thereby to bestow title to any part of the fund upon said respondent (cf. Stevens v. Stevens, 4 Misc 2d 27; Matter of Daly, 2 Misc 2d 570). In the circumstances, said fund belongs to appellant (Katzman v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 309 N. Y. 197, 203; Matter of Van Alstyne, 207 N. Y. 298; Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421). Accordingly, no triable issue is presented. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover a fund on deposit in respondent bank in a joint account [1056]*1056in the names of appellant and the individual respondent, his son, and for other relief, the appeal is from an order denying appellant’s motion for summary judgment (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 113). Order reversed, without costs, and motion granted. The record shows that in 1952 appellant opened an account with respondent bank in his own name and that the entire fund in question was accumulated by him in the ensuing years. The record further shows that in November, 1957 he had the account changed to be payable to himself in trust for another son, and that in March, 1958 when he accompanied his son, the individual respondent, to the respondent bank and signed the documents converting the account into a joint account for himself and said son, he did not intend thereby to bestow title to any part of the fund upon said respondent (cf. Stevens v. Stevens, 4 Misc 2d 27; Matter of Daly, 2 Misc 2d 570). In the circumstances, said fund belongs to appellant (Katzman v. Ætna Life Ins. Co., 309 N. Y. 197, 203; Matter of Van Alstyne, 207 N. Y. 298; Beaver v. Beaver, 117 N. Y. 421). Accordingly, no triable issue is presented. Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.2d 1055, 179 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1958 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4521, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/karp-v-karp-nyappdiv-1958.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack