Kerzner v. Kerzner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kerzner v. Kerzner

248 A.D.2d 186, 670 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2398

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

DecidedMarch 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 186 (Kerzner v. Kerzner) 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

Kerzner v. Kerzner, 248 A.D.2d 186, 670 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2398 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [187]*187County (David Saxe, J.), entered on or about December 23, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendant debtor’s motion for an order enjoining the enforcement of a judgment against certain funds in his corporate profit-sharing plan, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant seeks to exempt certain funds in his corporate profit-sharing pension plan from the enforcement of a judgment entered against him for attorneys’ fees, stemming from the creditor’s representation of plaintiff in various divorce proceedings. However, defendant’s failure to establish that the profit-sharing plan was properly established as a qualified “trust” pursuant to CPLR 5205 (c) precludes the grant to him of an exemption thereunder. Additionally, we agree with the IAS Court’s rationale for denying defendant’s motion for injunctive relief, to the extent of observing that defendant’s withdrawal from the trust, of which he was a trustee, of funds thereafter applied by him to the satisfaction of other debts arising from the divorce proceedings, is a circumstance that further undermines his claim to the aforecited statute’s protection (see, Ullman v Cameron, 186 NY 339, 346; In re Taft, 171 Bankr 497, 503, affd in relevant part and revd in part 184 Bankr 189).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [187]*187County (David Saxe, J.), entered on or about December 23, 1996, which, inter alia, denied defendant debtor’s motion for an order enjoining the enforcement of a judgment against certain funds in his corporate profit-sharing plan, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant seeks to exempt certain funds in his corporate profit-sharing pension plan from the enforcement of a judgment entered against him for attorneys’ fees, stemming from the creditor’s representation of plaintiff in various divorce proceedings. However, defendant’s failure to establish that the profit-sharing plan was properly established as a qualified “trust” pursuant to CPLR 5205 (c) precludes the grant to him of an exemption thereunder. Additionally, we agree with the IAS Court’s rationale for denying defendant’s motion for injunctive relief, to the extent of observing that defendant’s withdrawal from the trust, of which he was a trustee, of funds thereafter applied by him to the satisfaction of other debts arising from the divorce proceedings, is a circumstance that further undermines his claim to the aforecited statute’s protection (see, Ullman v Cameron, 186 NY 339, 346; In re Taft, 171 Bankr 497, 503, affd in relevant part and revd in part 184 Bankr 189).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 186, 670 N.Y.S.2d 763, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2398, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kerzner-v-kerzner-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack