Sussman v. Sussman

392 N.E.2d 881, 47 N.Y.2d 849, 418 N.Y.S.2d 768, 1979 N.Y. LEXIS 2121
New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 5, 1979·Published·Cited by 5 cases

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

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).

392 N.E.2d 881 (Sussman v. Sussman) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Cruz v. Apfel
48 F. Supp. 2d 375 (S.D. New York, 1999)
Marshall v. United States
831 F. Supp. 988 (E.D. New York, 1993)
Scherling v. Ehrenkranz (In Re Eljay Jrs., Inc.)
106 B.R. 775 (S.D. New York, 1989)
In re Dana
119 Misc. 2d 815 (New York Supreme Court, 1982)