Meltzer v. Koenigsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Meltzer v. Koenigsberg

277 A.D.2d 1050

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1950

StatusPublished

This text of 277 A.D.2d 1050 (Meltzer v. Koenigsberg) 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

Meltzer v. Koenigsberg, 277 A.D.2d 1050 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1950).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order and from the judgment entered thereon, dismissing the complaint upon a motion under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. {Bayreuther v. Beinisch, 264 App. Div. 138, affd. 290 N. Y. 553; Coler v. Goler, 271 App. Div. 877, affd. 297 N. Y. 488.) Plaintiffs and defendant are sisters. The plaintiffs sue for an accounting and for other relief. Their complaint alleges that the parties agreed to make contributions for the business and other purposes of the father during his lifetime and to divide equally his net estate, regardless of which of them might be beneficiaries under his will. The complaint does not allege that the father was a party to the agreement, which was oral. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds under subdivision 1 of section 31 of the Personal Property Law. The defendant was the chief beneficiary of the will which embraced both real and personal property. The oral agreement sought to be enforced was one which could not be performed until the end of the father’s life. Present — Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 570.]

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

Appeal by plaintiffs from an order and from the judgment entered thereon, dismissing the complaint upon a motion under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. {Bayreuther v. Beinisch, 264 App. Div. 138, affd. 290 N. Y. 553; Coler v. Goler, 271 App. Div. 877, affd. 297 N. Y. 488.) Plaintiffs and defendant are sisters. The plaintiffs sue for an accounting and for other relief. Their complaint alleges that the parties agreed to make contributions for the business and other purposes of the father during his lifetime and to divide equally his net estate, regardless of which of them might be beneficiaries under his will. The complaint does not allege that the father was a party to the agreement, which was oral. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds under subdivision 1 of section 31 of the Personal Property Law. The defendant was the chief beneficiary of the will which embraced both real and personal property. The oral agreement sought to be enforced was one which could not be performed until the end of the father’s life. Present — Johnston, Acting P. J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MaeCrate, JJ. [See 278 App. Div. 570.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

277 A.D.2d 1050, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/meltzer-v-koenigsberg-nyappdiv-1950.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack