Shiposki v. von Leidersdorff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shiposki v. von Leidersdorff

261 A.D. 1002, 26 N.Y.S.2d 697

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

DecidedMarch 31, 1941

StatusPublished

This text of 261 A.D. 1002 (Shiposki v. von Leidersdorff) 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

Shiposki v. von Leidersdorff, 261 A.D. 1002, 26 N.Y.S.2d 697 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1941).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying motion to vacate warrant of attachment and levy made thereon, and order of publication, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Income which accrued constituted property of appellant even though the trustee was not required to pay it over until the termination of the current quarter-annual period. (See Surr. Ct. Act, § 204; Tolles v. Wood, 99 N. Y. 616, more fully reported in 16 Abb. N. C. 1.) In any event, in the light of failure by or on behalf of appellant expressly to disclaim that such income was presently payable and the averment of respondent’s attorney that the trustee admitted setting apart the property of appellant in accordance with the levy, any issue of fact was properly determined. Appeal from order denying motion for reargument dismissed, without costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

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

Order denying motion to vacate warrant of attachment and levy made thereon, and order of publication, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Income which accrued constituted property of appellant even though the trustee was not required to pay it over until the termination of the current quarter-annual period. (See Surr. Ct. Act, § 204; Tolles v. Wood, 99 N. Y. 616, more fully reported in 16 Abb. N. C. 1.) In any event, in the light of failure by or on behalf of appellant expressly to disclaim that such income was presently payable and the averment of respondent’s attorney that the trustee admitted setting apart the property of appellant in accordance with the levy, any issue of fact was properly determined. Appeal from order denying motion for reargument dismissed, without costs. Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Adel, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D. 1002, 26 N.Y.S.2d 697, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shiposki-v-von-leidersdorff-nyappdiv-1941.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack