Sociedad Anonima de Inversiones Comerciales e Industriales v. Bosurgi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sociedad Anonima de Inversiones Comerciales e Industriales v. Bosurgi

43 A.D.2d 519, 349 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3171

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 43 A.D.2d 519 (Sociedad Anonima de Inversiones Comerciales e Industriales v. Bosurgi) 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

Sociedad Anonima de Inversiones Comerciales e Industriales v. Bosurgi, 43 A.D.2d 519, 349 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3171 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 22, 1972, insofar as it denied plaintiff’s motion for an order of consolidation or concurrent consideration and for summary [520]*520judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and said order, insofar as it denied the cross motion of defendant Benedict Ginsberg, Esq., unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and the cross motion granted only to the extent of a remand for a hearing to determine the fixation of fees, all without costs and without disbursements. The main motion for summary judgment is meritorious. The documentary evidence submitted on the motion, conceded to be “ genuine and authentic ”, conclusively demonstrates that the fund in question represented the proceeds of a trust established in writing, December 10, 1954, between plaintiff and the Bosurgi defendants and their mother, Adriana Bosurgi; and that it belongs to plaintiff, for whom the defendants, Bosurgi, have been simply holding it in a fiduciary and custodial capacity. Thus, there is no genuine issue of fact in respect of title thereto. The posture of the Chemical Bank is not realistic. We perceive no development whereby the bank could possibly be prejudiced by this grant of summary judgment. Nor can the pending Federal actions and proceedings present any bar to the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, as the tax liens, if valid, are not affected. In any event, we find no impediment to this court’s determining an issue of fact competently before it, regardless of peripheral Federal questions. (Venitron Corp. v. Benjamin, 440 F. 2d 105, cert, den., 402 U. S. 987.) And it is clearly so when the plaintiff herein has not been stayed by a Federal court order. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman, Lane and Steuer, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on August 22, 1972, insofar as it denied plaintiff’s motion for an order of consolidation or concurrent consideration and for summary [520]*520judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, and said order, insofar as it denied the cross motion of defendant Benedict Ginsberg, Esq., unanimously modified, on the law and the facts, and the cross motion granted only to the extent of a remand for a hearing to determine the fixation of fees, all without costs and without disbursements. The main motion for summary judgment is meritorious. The documentary evidence submitted on the motion, conceded to be “ genuine and authentic ”, conclusively demonstrates that the fund in question represented the proceeds of a trust established in writing, December 10, 1954, between plaintiff and the Bosurgi defendants and their mother, Adriana Bosurgi; and that it belongs to plaintiff, for whom the defendants, Bosurgi, have been simply holding it in a fiduciary and custodial capacity. Thus, there is no genuine issue of fact in respect of title thereto. The posture of the Chemical Bank is not realistic. We perceive no development whereby the bank could possibly be prejudiced by this grant of summary judgment. Nor can the pending Federal actions and proceedings present any bar to the entry of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, as the tax liens, if valid, are not affected. In any event, we find no impediment to this court’s determining an issue of fact competently before it, regardless of peripheral Federal questions. (Venitron Corp. v. Benjamin, 440 F. 2d 105, cert, den., 402 U. S. 987.) And it is clearly so when the plaintiff herein has not been stayed by a Federal court order. Concur — McGivern, J. P., Markewich, Kupferman, Lane and Steuer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

43 A.D.2d 519, 349 N.Y.S.2d 75, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sociedad-anonima-de-inversiones-comerciales-e-industriales-v-bosurgi-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack