Lamb v. Lamb

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lamb v. Lamb

57 A.D.2d 887, 394 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12117

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

DecidedMay 16, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 887 (Lamb v. Lamb) 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

Lamb v. Lamb, 57 A.D.2d 887, 394 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12117 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to impress a constructive trust upon certain securities and investments, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 4, 1974, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, determined that certain designated personal property, consisting of paintings and antique furniture, is the property of both plaintiff and defendant and dismissed the first, third and fourth causes of action of the complaint. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The trial court properly found, based upon the intent and conduct of the parties, that the paintings and antiques were the jointly owned property of plaintiff and defendant. The trial court was also justified in determining that the joint brokerage account, under which certain securities were purchased, was not intended to vest title in the parties jointly, but was put in that form to protect the plaintiff for testamentary purposes only. With regard to those securities bought solely in defendant’s name under his private accounts, plaintiff has no interest therein since she has not adequately made out a case for the application of the constructive trust doctrine. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to impress a constructive trust upon certain securities and investments, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated September 4, 1974, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, determined that certain designated personal property, consisting of paintings and antique furniture, is the property of both plaintiff and defendant and dismissed the first, third and fourth causes of action of the complaint. Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The trial court properly found, based upon the intent and conduct of the parties, that the paintings and antiques were the jointly owned property of plaintiff and defendant. The trial court was also justified in determining that the joint brokerage account, under which certain securities were purchased, was not intended to vest title in the parties jointly, but was put in that form to protect the plaintiff for testamentary purposes only. With regard to those securities bought solely in defendant’s name under his private accounts, plaintiff has no interest therein since she has not adequately made out a case for the application of the constructive trust doctrine. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 887, 394 N.Y.S.2d 405, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12117, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lamb-v-lamb-nyappdiv-1977.