Robinson v. Robinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Robinson v. Robinson

25 A.D.2d 822, 269 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341

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

DecidedMay 3, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 822 (Robinson v. Robinson) 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

Robinson v. Robinson, 25 A.D.2d 822, 269 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Order entered April 1, 1966, denying plaintiff’s motion for an order directing payments by J. Walter Thompson Company to plaintiff, as sequestrator and receiver of defendant’s property, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff against defendant, and the motion granted. Textually the July 15, 1965 letter is in our opinion an insufficient relinquishment by defendant of effective present control over the funds in question. Furthermore, on defendant’s part the letter is so transparent an attempt to place the funds beyond plaintiff’s legitimate reach that it may not be accorded recognition. It is noted that defendant was given notice of the motion and defaulted. Settle order on notice to J. Walter Thompson Company.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin and Eager, JJ.

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

Order entered April 1, 1966, denying plaintiff’s motion for an order directing payments by J. Walter Thompson Company to plaintiff, as sequestrator and receiver of defendant’s property, unanimously reversed, on the law and on the facts, with $30 costs and disbursements to plaintiff against defendant, and the motion granted. Textually the July 15, 1965 letter is in our opinion an insufficient relinquishment by defendant of effective present control over the funds in question. Furthermore, on defendant’s part the letter is so transparent an attempt to place the funds beyond plaintiff’s legitimate reach that it may not be accorded recognition. It is noted that defendant was given notice of the motion and defaulted. Settle order on notice to J. Walter Thompson Company.

Concur — Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin and Eager, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 822, 269 N.Y.S.2d 373, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4341, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robinson-v-robinson-nyappdiv-1966.