Sussman v. Sussman

New York Court of Appeals

Sussman v. Sussman

392 N.E.2d 881, 47 N.Y.2d 849, 418 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2121

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 5, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 392 N.E.2d 881 (Sussman v. Sussman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sussman v. Sussman, 392 N.E.2d 881, 47 N.Y.2d 849, 418 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2121 (N.Y. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The document executed on January 20, 1969 by decedent, George F. Dembow, evinces at most an intention to make a future donative transfer of the proceeds of unspecified securities to certain grandchildren, then infants under 21 years of age. Neither the bonds nor their proceeds were ever physically delivered to the custodian of the grandchildren’s accounts, and therefore, no gift was effected under the Uniform Gift to Minors Act (see EPTL 7-4.1). Having failed as a gift, the transaction may not on this record be upheld as a trust (see Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v Winthrop, 238 NY 477, 487). Moreover, the alleged trust corpus was not adequately designated or identified (see Brown v Spohr, 180 NY 201, 209).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The document executed on January 20, 1969 by decedent, George F. Dembow, evinces at most an intention to make a future donative transfer of the proceeds of unspecified securities to certain grandchildren, then infants under 21 years of age. Neither the bonds nor their proceeds were ever physically delivered to the custodian of the grandchildren’s accounts, and therefore, no gift was effected under the Uniform Gift to Minors Act (see EPTL 7-4.1). Having failed as a gift, the transaction may not on this record be upheld as a trust (see Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co. v Winthrop, 238 NY 477, 487). Moreover, the alleged trust corpus was not adequately designated or identified (see Brown v Spohr, 180 NY 201, 209).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler and Fuchsberg concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

392 N.E.2d 881, 47 N.Y.2d 849, 418 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2121, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sussman-v-sussman-ny-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack