TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re the Estate of Porianda

In the Matter of the Estate of Mary Porianda

In re the Estate of Porianda, 135 Misc. 389 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Surrogate's Court · State Specialty Courts
Decided
October 18, 1929
Judges
Slater
Citations
135 Misc. 389237 N.Y.S. 7151929 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 981

Opinion of the Court — Slater

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Slater, S.

The decedent’s bank account in the Yonkers Savings Bank was transferred so as to read: “ Mary Porianda or Annie Wrona, joint account, either to draw, survivor to take all.” Pursuant to this form of deposit, either could withdraw from the fund, and the money became the property of Annie Wrona upon the death of the decedent. (Banking Law, § 249, subd. 3; Moskowitz v. Marrow, 251 N. Y. 380 .)

Another question is raised because Annie Wrona, during the lifetime of the decedent, withdrew, as she had the right to withdraw, some $3,000 from the account, and made deposits thereof in her own name and in her own name in trust for hér four children. Testimony was taken of conversations had with the decedent with regard to the withdrawal of the $3,000. In my judgment, this testimony is immaterial, because of the “ joint account ” which gives to one or the other the right to withdraw.

The opinion of Judge Kellogg in Moskowitz v. Marrow (supra) indicates clearly the right of joint tenants, where deposits are made pursuant to the Banldng Law, indicating that the deposit was rrevocable since a vested property right therein existed.

I conclude that the decedent, in originally making the joint deposit, transferred to Annie Wrona a. present property interest in the moneys deposited which was never destroyed, giving to Annie Wrona the right to withdraw $3,000, or any sum, and to the withdrawal of the balance deposited in the bank at the death of the decedent. In the instant case, no testimony was offered that would change the form of the deposit at the time it was made, and the deposit must stand as an expression of the true agreement pursuant to section 249 of the Banking Law. The funds in controversy belong to Annie Wrona and not to the estate of the decedent.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1930: 219302026peak 1930 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. In re the Estate of Sutter138 Misc. 85 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)
  2. In re Estate of Porianda230 A.D. 788 (1930)

Most recent

  1. In re the Estate of Sutter138 Misc. 85 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1930)
  2. In re Estate of Porianda230 A.D. 788 (1930)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Moskowitz v. Marrow, 167 N.E. 506 (N.Y. 1929) 128

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list