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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 10, 1998·Published

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York [187] County (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] County (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.

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

248 A.D.2d 186 (Kerzner v. Kerzner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related