Mendelsohn v. Mendelsohn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mendelsohn v. Mendelsohn

31 A.D.2d 742, 296 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4709

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

DecidedJanuary 28, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 31 A.D.2d 742 (Mendelsohn v. Mendelsohn) 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

Mendelsohn v. Mendelsohn, 31 A.D.2d 742, 296 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered August 28, 1968 [743]*743unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and the motion denied, without costs or disbursements to either party. By this motion the plaintiff, as sequestrator, seeks permission to redeem certain United States Series E Savings Bonds, registered in the name of the defendant and his mother, the appellant herein, and to apply the proceeds towards the arrearages under a judgment against the defendant. The appellant claims to be the true owner of the bonds and the affidavits contain sufficient to raise a plain factual question as to the ownership of the bonds. Under the circumstances it was improper to determine, summarily, that the sequestrator had the right to redeem the bonds. The parties should be left to the remedy of a plenary action to determine the true ownership. (See Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 259 N. Y. 338.) Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez, Rabin and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order entered August 28, 1968 [743]*743unanimously reversed on the law and the facts and the motion denied, without costs or disbursements to either party. By this motion the plaintiff, as sequestrator, seeks permission to redeem certain United States Series E Savings Bonds, registered in the name of the defendant and his mother, the appellant herein, and to apply the proceeds towards the arrearages under a judgment against the defendant. The appellant claims to be the true owner of the bonds and the affidavits contain sufficient to raise a plain factual question as to the ownership of the bonds. Under the circumstances it was improper to determine, summarily, that the sequestrator had the right to redeem the bonds. The parties should be left to the remedy of a plenary action to determine the true ownership. (See Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 259 N. Y. 338.) Concur—Capozzoli, J. P., McGivern, Nunez, Rabin and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 A.D.2d 742, 296 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mendelsohn-v-mendelsohn-nyappdiv-1969.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack