Zinaman v. Haag

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zinaman v. Haag

240 A.D. 850

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1933

StatusPublished

This text of 240 A.D. 850 (Zinaman v. Haag) 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

Zinaman v. Haag, 240 A.D. 850 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1933).

Pincite

Opinion

That part of the judgment which dismissed the plaintiff’s second and third causes of action reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and plaintiff is awarded judgment, with costs, decreeing that defendant Nicholas Haag is the actual and beneficial owner of the premises described in the complaint, and that defendant Elly Haag holds title to said premises in trust for the said Nicholas Haag. The plaintiff’s requests to find numbers 25 to 37, inclusive, are found, together with conclusions of law numbers 6 and 7, as requested by plaintiff. The undisputed proofs show that the premises in question were purchased with moneys belonging exclusively to defendant Nicholas Haag, and, under section 94 of the Real Property Law, it is presumed that the conveyance thereof to his wife was fraudulent as against his creditors. There was no attempt on the trial to disprove or overcome that presumption. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

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

That part of the judgment which dismissed the plaintiff’s second and third causes of action reversed on the law and the facts, with costs, and plaintiff is awarded judgment, with costs, decreeing that defendant Nicholas Haag is the actual and beneficial owner of the premises described in the complaint, and that defendant Elly Haag holds title to said premises in trust for the said Nicholas Haag. The plaintiff’s requests to find numbers 25 to 37, inclusive, are found, together with conclusions of law numbers 6 and 7, as requested by plaintiff. The undisputed proofs show that the premises in question were purchased with moneys belonging exclusively to defendant Nicholas Haag, and, under section 94 of the Real Property Law, it is presumed that the conveyance thereof to his wife was fraudulent as against his creditors. There was no attempt on the trial to disprove or overcome that presumption. Lazansky, P. J., Young, Scudder, Tompkins and Davis, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D. 850, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zinaman-v-haag-nyappdiv-1933.