Manta v. Manta

56 A.D.2d 624, 391 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10720
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 22, 1977
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 624 (Manta v. Manta) 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
Manta v. Manta, 56 A.D.2d 624, 391 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Opinion

In an action to recover amounts withdrawn from a joint savings account, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated December 9, 1975, which is in favor of plaintiff in the principal amount of $14,035.66, together with interest, costs and disbursements, after a nonjury trial. Judgment modified, on the law, without costs or disbursements, by reducing the principal amount thereof to $7,017.83. As so modified, judgment affirmed, and action remanded to Trial Term for the entry of an appropriate amended judgment. The findings of fact are affirmed. The parties’ mother set up a joint savings account with plaintiff, and then withdrew the entire balance, less $10, therefrom and deposited it into a new joint bank account in the names of herself and the defendant. As a joint tenant of the first account,' plaintiff became entitled to a moiety of the balance in the account during the lifetime of the mother. However, the mother had the legal power to withdraw her moiety from the account, and to thereby terminate plaintiff’s survivorship right therein. Thus, plaintiff is the rightful owner of one half of said balance, and defendant is the rightful owner of the other half, by survivorship (see Matter of Kleinberg v Heller, 38 NY2d 836). The withdrawn money having been traced by the court to the second account, and having been withdrawn therefrom by defendant, defendant is liable to plaintiff for plaintiff’s moiety of the first account. Rabin, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Wiggins v. Parson
446 So. 2d 169 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1984)
Lieberman v. Silverstein
393 So. 2d 565 (District Court of Appeal of Florida, 1981)
Estate of Buchholtz v. Commissioner
1977 T.C. Memo. 396 (U.S. Tax Court, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
56 A.D.2d 624, 391 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/manta-v-manta-nyappdiv-1977.