Legal Opinion

Tausik v. Tausik

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 11, 1962PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the CourtMatthew M. Levy, J.

In my earlier opinion in these cases, I said — in respect of certain household furniture and furnishings purchased by the plaintiff husband — “ [n] othing in the record warrants the conclusion, as claimed by the defendant [wife], that plaintiff made a gift to her of the property ”, and, citing Plohn v. Plohn, 1 A D 2d 824 (which modified and affirmed the trial court in 206 Misc. 969), that the law is “ now clear, even here, that, absent affirmative proof of a different intent, household property obtained [by either spouse] for the general use, comfort and benefit of both husband and wife, is…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. 9 Avenue-31 Street Corp.New York Court of Appeals · 1937
  2. Hydraulic Power Co. v. Pettebone-Cataract Paper Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1921
  3. Tausik v. TausikNew York Supreme Court · 1962
  4. Plohn v. PlohnNew York Supreme Court · 1954
  5. Morton v. StateNew York Court of Claims · 1958

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Manheim v. ManheimNew York Supreme Court · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API