Kaz v. Kaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaz v. Kaz

20 A.D.2d 895, 248 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4079

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

DecidedApril 6, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 895 (Kaz v. Kaz) 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

Kaz v. Kaz, 20 A.D.2d 895, 248 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

In a replevin action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 14, 1963 upon the court’s decision after a nonjury trial, in favor of the defendant Kaye Kaz. Judgment modified on the law as follows: (1) by deleting the item numbered “ 31 ” from its second decretal paragraph which declared defendant Kaye Kaz to be the owner of the 32 works of art therein enumerated; and (2) by deleting the item numbered “8” from its third decretal paragraph which declared said defendant to be entitled to the possession of the 9 works in storage therein enumerated. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact contained in the court’s decision are affirmed. Item 8 is obviously a duplication of item 31 as to which the defendant Kaz’ claim was withdrawn at the trial. In our opinion, the evidence is sufficient to support the findings of the trial court that the defendant Kaz is the owner of all the other items enumerated in the judgment. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a replevin action, plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered March 14, 1963 upon the court’s decision after a nonjury trial, in favor of the defendant Kaye Kaz. Judgment modified on the law as follows: (1) by deleting the item numbered “ 31 ” from its second decretal paragraph which declared defendant Kaye Kaz to be the owner of the 32 works of art therein enumerated; and (2) by deleting the item numbered “8” from its third decretal paragraph which declared said defendant to be entitled to the possession of the 9 works in storage therein enumerated. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed, without costs. The findings of fact contained in the court’s decision are affirmed. Item 8 is obviously a duplication of item 31 as to which the defendant Kaz’ claim was withdrawn at the trial. In our opinion, the evidence is sufficient to support the findings of the trial court that the defendant Kaz is the owner of all the other items enumerated in the judgment. Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 895, 248 N.Y.S.2d 933, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaz-v-kaz-nyappdiv-1964.