Towpash v. Towpash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Towpash v. Towpash

70 A.D.2d 634, 416 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12078

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

DecidedMay 21, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.2d 634 (Towpash v. Towpash) 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

Towpash v. Towpash, 70 A.D.2d 634, 416 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12078 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 11, 1978, as (1) denied her claim to certain savings accounts alleged to have been converted by the defendant husband, (2) denied her claim to sole title of the marital residence and (3) provided that the marital residence be sold upon the occurrence of certain specified events. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The proof adduced at trial by plaintiff was insufficient to establish any conversion by defendant. Furthermore, plaintiff’s proof as to her claim of sole ownership of the marital residence was insufficient to establish that the marital residence was not owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated December 11, 1978, as (1) denied her claim to certain savings accounts alleged to have been converted by the defendant husband, (2) denied her claim to sole title of the marital residence and (3) provided that the marital residence be sold upon the occurrence of certain specified events. Judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The proof adduced at trial by plaintiff was insufficient to establish any conversion by defendant. Furthermore, plaintiff’s proof as to her claim of sole ownership of the marital residence was insufficient to establish that the marital residence was not owned by the parties as tenants by the entirety. Titone, J. P., Suozzi, Shapiro and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 634, 416 N.Y.S.2d 527, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12078, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/towpash-v-towpash-nyappdiv-1979.