Kelkenberg v. Anderson

5 Citing cases

  1. Parker v. Parker

    2003 N.Y. Slip Op. 23890 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004)

    An oral agreement to share lottery winnings is valid and enforceable ( see, Johnson v. Spence, 286 AD2d 481; Maffea v. Ippolito, 247 AD2d 366; Edwin v. Arackal, 241 AD2d 335; Kelkenberg v. Anderson, 237 AD2d 972; Johnson v. Johnson, 191 AD2d 257; Smith v. Smith, supra; Pando v. Fernandez, 118 AD2d 474). The husband has the burden of proving at the trial that the parties made a certain and specific mutual promise to share the subject lottery winnings; that the purchase of the winning ticket by the wife was in furtherance of the parties' "joint venture"; and that the wife breached the parties' agreement by refusing to share the winnings with him ( see, Johnson v. Spence, supra; Maffea v. Ippolito, supra; Edwin v. Arackal, supra; Kelkenberg v. Anderson, supra; Smith v. Smith, supra; Pando v. Fernandez, supra).

  2. Parker v. Parker

    2 Misc. 3d 484 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)

    An oral agreement to share lottery winnings is valid and enforceable (see, Johnson v. Spence, 286 A.D.2d 481; Maffea v. Ippolito, 247 A.D.2d 366; Edwin v. Arackal, 241 A.D.2d 335; Kelkenberg v. Anderson, 237 A.D.2d 972; Johnson v. Johnson, 191 A.D.2d 257; Smith v. Smith, supra; Pando v. Fernandez, 118 A.D.2d 474) . The husband has the burden of proving at the trial that the parties made a certain and specific mutual promise to share the subject lottery winnings; that the purchase of the winning ticket by the wife was in furtherance of the parties' "joint venture;" and that the wife breached the parties' agreement by refusing to share the winnings with him (see, Johnson v. Spence, supra; Maffea v. Ippolito, supra; Edwin v. Arackal, supra; Kelkenberg v. Anderson, supra; Smith v. Smith, supra; Pando v. Fernandez, supra).

  3. Parker v. Parker

    2 Misc. 3d 484 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)

    The lottery proceeds herein are not subject to equitable distribution unless the husband first successfully prosecutes his claim that he and the wife should be declared joint title owners of the lottery winnings. An oral agreement to share lottery winnings is valid and enforceable (see, Johnson v Spence, 286 AD2d 481 [2001]; Maffea v Ippolito, 247 AD2d 366 [1998]; Edwin v Arackal, 241 AD2d 335 [1997]; Kelkenberg v Anderson, 237 AD2d 972 [1997]; Johnson v Johnson, 191 AD2d 257 [1993]; Smith v Smith, supra; Pando v Fernandez, 118 AD2d 474 [1986]). The husband has the burden of proving at the trial that the parties made a certain and specific mutual promise to share the subject lottery winnings; that the purchase of the winning ticket by the wife was in furtherance of the parties' "joint venture"; and that the wife breached the parties' agreement by refusing to share the winnings with him (see, Johnson v Spence, supra; Maffea v Ippolito, supra; Edwin v Arackal, supra; Kelkenberg v Anderson, supra; Smith v Smith, supra; Pando v Fernandez, supra). A preliminary conference was conducted on July 28, 2003.

  4. Parker v. Parker

    196 Misc. 2d 672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)

    An oral agreement to share lottery winnings is valid and enforceable (see, Johnson v Spence, 286 A.D.2d 481; Maffea v Ippolito, 247 A.D.2d 366; Edwin v Arackal, 241 A.D.2d 335; Kelkenberg v Anderson, 237 A.D.2d 972; Johnson v Johnson, 191 A.D.2d 257; Smith v Smith, supra; Pando v Fernandez, 118 A.D.2d 474). The husband has the burden of proving at the trial that the parties made a certain and specific mutual promise to share the subject lottery winnings; that the purchase of the winning ticket by the wife was in furtherance of the parties' "joint venture;" and that the wife breached the parties' agreement by refusing to share the winnings with him (see, Johnson v Spence, supra; Maffea v Ippolito, supra; Edwin v Arackal, supra; Kelkenberg v Anderson, supra; Smith v Smith, supra; Pando v Fernandez, supra).

  5. Parker v. Parker

    196 Misc. 2d 672 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2003)

    The court has the authority, in an action for divorce and/or separation, to decide questions of title pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 234. An oral agreement to share lottery winnings is valid and enforceable (see, Johnson v Spence, 286 AD2d 481 [2001]; Maffea v Ippolito, 247 AD2d 366 [1998]; Edwin v Arackal, 241 AD2d 335 [1997]; Kelkenberg v Anderson, 237 AD2d 972 [1997]; Johnson v Johnson, 191 AD2d 257 [1993]; Smith v Smith, supra; Pando v Fernandez, 118 AD2d 474 [1986]). The husband has the burden of proving at the trial that the parties made a certain and specific mutual promise to share the subject lottery winnings; that the purchase of the winning ticket by the wife was in furtherance of the parties' "joint venture"; and that the wife breached the parties' agreement by refusing to share the winnings with him (see, Johnson v Spence, supra; Maffea v Ippolito, supra; Edwin v Arackal, supra; Kelkenberg v Anderson, supra; Smith v Smith, supra; Pando v Fernandez, supra). If the husband had brought a breach of contract action against the wife seeking a portion of the lottery winnings, rather than a matrimonial action, he would have been entitled to a preliminary injunction pursuant to CPLR 6301 only upon a showing that he was likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm absent interim injunctive relief, and that the balance o