From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Meltzer v. Koenigsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1950
277 App. Div. 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Opinion

November 20, 1950.

Present — Johnston, Acting P.J., Adel, Sneed, Wenzel and MacCrate, JJ.


Appeal by plaintiffs from an order and from the judgment entered thereon, dismissing the complaint upon a motion under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. ( Bayreuther v. Reinisch, 264 App. Div. 138, affd. 290 N.Y. 553; Coler v. Coler, 271 App. Div. 877, affd. 297 N.Y. 488.) Plaintiffs and defendant are sisters. The plaintiffs sue for an accounting and for other relief. Their complaint alleges that the parties agreed to make contributions for the business and other purposes of the father during his lifetime and to divide equally his net estate, regardless of which of them might be beneficiaries under his will. The complaint does not allege that the father was a party to the agreement, which was oral. Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings under rule 112 of the Rules of Civil Practice, on the ground that the action was barred by the Statute of Frauds under subdivision 1 of section 31 Pers. Prop. of the Personal Property Law. The defendant was the chief beneficiary of the will which embraced both real and personal property. The oral agreement sought to be enforced was one which could not be performed until the end of the father's life.


Summaries of

Meltzer v. Koenigsberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 20, 1950
277 App. Div. 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)
Case details for

Meltzer v. Koenigsberg

Case Details

Full title:SALLY MELTZER et al., Appellants, v. ANNA KOENIGSBERG, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 20, 1950

Citations

277 App. Div. 1050 (N.Y. App. Div. 1950)

Citing Cases

Goldstein v. Brockstein

The complaint sufficiently alleges the creation of an express parol trust ( Foreman v. Foreman, 251 N.Y. 237;…