Coppola v. Coppola
| Decision Date | 11 March 1963 |
| Citation | 238 N.Y.S.2d 614,18 A.D.2d 1004 |
| Parties | Lillian COPPOLA, Respondent-Appellant, v. Frank COPPOLA, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lanna & Copppla, Yonkers, for appellant; Morton N. Wekstein, Yonkers, of counsel.
Edward H. Petruzzi, Yonkers, for respondent; Albert C. Jordan, Yonkers, of counsel.
Before BELDOCK, P. J., and KLEINFELD, CHRIST, BRENNAN and RABIN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action by a wife against her husband, to recover $3,900 given by her to him, shortly after their marriage, for the purpose of purchasing a parcel of unimproved real property in her name, in which the husband interposed two counterclaims to recover, inter alia, one-half the value of the parties' household furnishings which she removed and in which he claims an undivided half interest, the parties cross appeal as follows from a judgment of the City Court of Yonkers, entered June 19, 1961 upon the decision of the court after a nonjury trial, in plaintiff's favor:
(1) The husband appeals from the whole of said judgment which awarded the wife $3,021.03 (consisting of the principal sum of $2,250, interest thereon of $556.88 from May 1, 1957, and costs and disbursements of $214.15), and which dismissed the husband's counterclaims.
(2) The wife appeals, on the sole ground of inadequacy, from so much of the judgment as limited her recovery to the principal sum of $2,250 plus the interest thereon, totaling $2,806.88.
Judgment modified on the law and the facts to the extent of increasing the wife's recovery to $2,500, plus the interest thereon from May 1, 1957, plus the $214.15 costs and disbursements. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed without costs. The ninth finding of fact is reversed; and in lieu thereof new findings of fact as stated herein are hereby made.
It was undisputed and, accordingly, we find that the husband received $3,900 from the wife, and that of this sum $1,100 represented the proceeds of the sale of the wife's premarital brokerage business, and the balance of $2,800 represented gifts received by the parties upon the occasion of their wedding. In our opinion, on this record, there is no basis for limiting the wife's recovery to $2,250. We find there was no justification for the husband's failure to return the $1,100 which she paid over to him. Such payment was presumed to be a loan (Matter of Marshall's Estate, 7 Misc.2d 230, 164 N.Y.S.2d 886); and we find the proof was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Darwish v. Darwish
...Plohn, supra, 974-975, 135 N.Y.S.2d 135. See also Brenner v. Legum, 46 Misc.2d 552, 260 N.Y.S.2d 73 (1965); Coppola v. Coppola, 18 App.Div.2d 1004, 238 N.Y.S.2d 614 (1963); Samson v. Samson, (1960), 1 All.Eng. 653, 75 A.L.R.2d The above cases stand for the proposition that no presumption as......
-
Nehorayoff v. Nehorayoff
...are the joint property of both parties to the marriage." (Avnet v. Avnet, 204 Misc. 760, 768, 124 N.Y.S.2d 517; Coppola v. Coppola, 18 A.D.2d 1004, 238 N.Y.S.2d 614). The court finds that with the exception of the two rugs determined to be separate property of Mrs. Nehorayoff by Justice Ron......
-
Manheim v. Manheim
...use, see also Kobin v. Kobin, 2 A.D.2d 961 and 968, 157 N.Y.S.2d 202; Turner v. Brown, 6 Hun 331, 333. Cases such as Coppola v. Coppola, 18 A.D.2d 1004, 238 N.Y.S.2d 614, Brenner v. Legum, 46 Misc.2d 552, 260 N.Y.S.2d 73, and Avnet v. Avnet, 204 Misc. 760, 124 N.Y.S.2d 517, which hold that ......
-
Rywak v. Rywak
...the sale of the parties' prior residence, which had been a wedding gift to them from the defendant's parents (see Coppola v. Coppola, 18 A.D.2d 1004, 1005, 238 N.Y.S.2d 614; Nehorayoff v. Nehorayoff, 108 Misc.2d 311, 315, 437 N.Y.S.2d 584; Avnet v. Avnet, 204 Misc. 760, 124 N.Y.S.2d Pursuan......