Matter of Leichtman

2 Citing cases

  1. Matter of Stroh

    171 Misc. 681 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1939)   Cited 2 times

    So, it cannot now be foretold either what, if any, part of this residue will be left on hand at the husband's death, or just who will receive at that time. No such conditions existed either in the Matter of Cregan ( 275 N.Y. 337), or in Matter of Mancuso ( 170 Misc. 298) ; but conditions practically like those here presented were held in Matter of Leichtman ( 147 Misc. 589) to justify denial of exemptions under section 249-q Tax of the Tax Law. As to the husband, while it can be argued that because of his right to have the whole of the $7,801.

  2. Matter of Bonner

    157 Misc. 810 (N.Y. Surr. Ct. 1936)   Cited 1 times

    The possibility that there may be no funds at all to vest in any one when the death of the husband actually occurs places all possible remaindermen in the position of doubtful beneficiaries, and plainly puts their interests in the class of contingent remainders rather than vested interests. ( Matter of Leichtman, 147 Misc. 589; Matter of Lande, 241 A.D. 138; Matter of Mead, 145 Misc. 893; Matter of Smith, 147 id. 73; Matter of Chollet, 148 id. 782; Matter of Baldwin, HETHERINGTON, S., N YL.J. March 16, 1935, p. 1369.) The exemption of $5,000 to the remaindermen was improperly allowed.