From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Zell & Ettinger v. Berglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 1999
261 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Summary

In Zell, for example, even though the misappropriated funds were in the husband's joint bank account, the Second Department noted that there was no evidence he “exercise[d] dominion or control over the misappropriated funds,” or that the funds were “traceable” to him.

Summary of this case from Marini v. Adamo

Opinion

May 24, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaughan, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellant, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

The plaintiffs commenced the instant action against the defendant Menashe Berglas to recover damages for the misappropriation of funds by his wife, the defendant Gittel Berglas. Menashe sought summary judgment on the ground that he neither knew of nor benefited from his wife's misappropriation of her employer's funds. The plaintiffs opposed the motion inter alia, on the ground that the defendants Gittel and Menashe shared the joint bank account in which the misappropriated funds were deposited.

The Supreme Court erred in denying Menashe's motion for summary judgment. Menashe established that he did not exercise dominion or control over the misappropriated funds, and there was no showing that he obtained any benefit that in equity and good conscience he should not have obtained ( see, Bugarsky v. Marcantonio, 254 A.D.2d 384; Aetna Cas. Sur. Co. v. Glass, 75 A.D.2d 786; Mente v. Wenzel, 178 A.D.2d 705). The plaintiffs did not show that any of the stolen funds were traceable to the defendant Menashe and the plaintiffs' unsubstantiated allegations that Menashe benefited from and had knowledge of his wife's theft, made in the affirmation of their attorney, who had no personal knowledge of the facts, was insufficient to defeat Menashe's motion ( see, Tyschak v. Incorporated Vil. of Westbury, 193 A.D.2d 670; Dabbs v. City of Peekskill, 178 A.D.2d 577; West v. Village of Mamaroneck, 172 A.D.2d 827).

Bracken, J. P., Santucci, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Zell & Ettinger v. Berglas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 24, 1999
261 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

In Zell, for example, even though the misappropriated funds were in the husband's joint bank account, the Second Department noted that there was no evidence he “exercise[d] dominion or control over the misappropriated funds,” or that the funds were “traceable” to him.

Summary of this case from Marini v. Adamo

In Zell, the plaintiff argued that the husband was liable for unjust enrichment because the funds that were misappropriated by his wife were deposited in a bank account that they shared.

Summary of this case from Marini v. Adamo

refusing to impose liability for conversion just because a married couple shared a joint bank account

Summary of this case from H M Enterprises v. Murray
Case details for

Zell & Ettinger v. Berglas

Case Details

Full title:ZELL ETTINGER et al., Respondents, v. MENASHE BERGLAS, Appellant, et al.…

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

Date published: May 24, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 613 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 721

Citing Cases

Marini v. Adamo

However, the Court disagrees with plaintiffs' contention that she has been unjustly enriched simply by virtue…

Marini v. Adamo

Plaintiffs' theory at trial was based on the fact that Mrs. Adamo held joint bank accounts into which her…