Werman v. Mishpot Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Werman v. Mishpot Realty Corp.

238 A.D. 875

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

DecidedMarch 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 238 A.D. 875 (Werman v. Mishpot Realty Corp.) 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

Werman v. Mishpot Realty Corp., 238 A.D. 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment modified by eliminating therefrom the determination that the assignment of the sum of $2,200 used in the purchase of jewelry by Watnick was fraudulent and that the jewelry is being held by the defendants Deutsch in trust for the corporation, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact numbered 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, and conclusion of law numbered 6 are reversed. There is no proof in this case that the funds of the corporation were withdrawn by Watnick to purchase jewelry for appellant Lillian Deutsch, and there is no proof as to when the jewelry was purchased. We are of opinion that the finding that the corporation’s money was withdrawn and invested in jewelry fraudulently conveyed to appellant Lillian Deutsch is unsupported by the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., concurs except that he votes to further modify by eliminating defendant Lubelsky from the judgment.

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

Judgment modified by eliminating therefrom the determination that the assignment of the sum of $2,200 used in the purchase of jewelry by Watnick was fraudulent and that the jewelry is being held by the defendants Deutsch in trust for the corporation, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. Findings of fact numbered 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23, and conclusion of law numbered 6 are reversed. There is no proof in this case that the funds of the corporation were withdrawn by Watnick to purchase jewelry for appellant Lillian Deutsch, and there is no proof as to when the jewelry was purchased. We are of opinion that the finding that the corporation’s money was withdrawn and invested in jewelry fraudulently conveyed to appellant Lillian Deutsch is unsupported by the evidence. Lazansky, P. J., Kapper, Hagarty and Tompkins, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., concurs except that he votes to further modify by eliminating defendant Lubelsky from the judgment.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D. 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werman-v-mishpot-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1933.