Legal Opinion

Ehnes v. Krinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided February 26, 1952PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtGallahak, J.

The complaint of plaintiff in this action to set aside a fraudulent transfer of property has been dismissed upon the ground that the moneys transferred were exempt from the claim of creditors under subdivision 1 of section 166 of the Insurance Law. The moneys involved were the proceeds of a matured policy of life insurance obtained by defendant Krinsky on the life of her former husband. The policy was issued in December, 1941. The husband died in 1946, and the policy was paid.

Section 166 of the Insurance Law became effective January 1, 1940 (L. 1939, ch. 882). It provided for certain…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Chatham Phenix National Bank v. CrosneyNew York Court of Appeals · 1929
  2. Amberg v. . Manhattan Life Ins. Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1902
  3. Holmes v. John Hancock Mutual Life InsuranceNew York Court of Appeals · 1942

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Kramer v. Metropolitan Life InsuranceNew York Supreme Court · 1956
  2. Manufacturers Trust Co. v. KochNew York Supreme Court · 1961

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API