Lippner v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lippner v. Epstein

72 A.D.2d 807, 421 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14077

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

DecidedNovember 26, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 72 A.D.2d 807 (Lippner v. Epstein) 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

Lippner v. Epstein, 72 A.D.2d 807, 421 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14077 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion of securities, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 11, 1978, as, after a nonjury trial, denied recovery of those securities transferred as gifts under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The contested securities had been purchased in the name of the defendant daughter, Suzanne Epstein, nee Lippner, as custodian for either Eric, Rhonda or Melanie Epstein (plaintiff’s grandchildren) under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act. Plaintiff testified that she had retained physical custody of these securities and had received all of the dividends. These were placed either in custodial accounts for the grandchildren or were reinvested. This testimony indicates only a retention of custodial control, not the lack of donative intent asserted by plaintiff (see Gordon v Gordon, 70 AD2d 86). Such retention, although improper, does not affect the validity of the gifts (EPTL 7-4.1, subd [c]) and under EPTL 7-4.2 (subd [a]), the donees thus obtained indefeasibly vested title to the securities (see Gordon v Gordon, supra). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for conversion of securities, plaintiff appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated September 11, 1978, as, after a nonjury trial, denied recovery of those securities transferred as gifts under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The contested securities had been purchased in the name of the defendant daughter, Suzanne Epstein, nee Lippner, as custodian for either Eric, Rhonda or Melanie Epstein (plaintiff’s grandchildren) under the Uniform Gifts to Minors Act. Plaintiff testified that she had retained physical custody of these securities and had received all of the dividends. These were placed either in custodial accounts for the grandchildren or were reinvested. This testimony indicates only a retention of custodial control, not the lack of donative intent asserted by plaintiff (see Gordon v Gordon, 70 AD2d 86). Such retention, although improper, does not affect the validity of the gifts (EPTL 7-4.1, subd [c]) and under EPTL 7-4.2 (subd [a]), the donees thus obtained indefeasibly vested title to the securities (see Gordon v Gordon, supra). Titone, J. P., O’Connor, Gulotta and Margett, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 807, 421 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14077, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lippner-v-epstein-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack