White v. Adler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

White v. Adler

256 A.D. 915, 9 N.Y.S.2d 926

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

DecidedFebruary 24, 1939

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D. 915 (White v. Adler) 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

White v. Adler, 256 A.D. 915, 9 N.Y.S.2d 926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1939).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We agree with the Special Term in its holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish prima facie that defendant was the beneficial owner of the stock standing in the name of his wife, and that, in the absence of explanar, tion, judgment was properly given against him.

We fail to find any evidence in the record to support that portion of Finding of Fact No. 98 contained in the decision of Special Term, to the effect that the dividends were “ at the request of Mrs. Rose Leff, and on her written order,” deposited in the account of Max Leff. Accordingly, said finding should be reversed and a new Finding of Fact No. 98 made, to read as follows: That thereafter three separate dividends were declared by the Bank of United States upon the said stock standing in the name of Mrs. Rose Leff, which said dividends were deposited in an account of Max Leff in the trust department of the Chatham Phoenix National Bank & Trust Co., called “ special ” account.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

We agree with the Special Term in its holding that the evidence was sufficient to establish prima facie that defendant was the beneficial owner of the stock standing in the name of his wife, and that, in the absence of explanar, tion, judgment was properly given against him.

We fail to find any evidence in the record to support that portion of Finding of Fact No. 98 contained in the decision of Special Term, to the effect that the dividends were “ at the request of Mrs. Rose Leff, and on her written order,” deposited in the account of Max Leff. Accordingly, said finding should be reversed and a new Finding of Fact No. 98 made, to read as follows: That thereafter three separate dividends were declared by the Bank of United States upon the said stock standing in the name of Mrs. Rose Leff, which said dividends were deposited in an account of Max Leff in the trust department of the Chatham Phoenix National Bank & Trust Co., called “ special ” account.

The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Glennon, Dore and Callahan, JJ.

Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D. 915, 9 N.Y.S.2d 926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/white-v-adler-nyappdiv-1939.