NYLE Practice Questions Exam Questions
With Correct Answers
Paul and Peter were married for 10 years and have two children. In 2019, Paul
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
lost his job. The financial stress deteriorated the marriage, which caused Peter to
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
file for divorce. Peter is seeking joint custody and maintenance from Paul. How
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
should the court calculate maintenance and child support?
| | | | | | |
A. The parties calculate child support and seek court approval for maintenance
| | | | | | | | | | |
B. Child support should be calculated first
| | | | | |
C. Maintenance should be calculated first
| | | | |
D. Child support and maintenance should be calculated concurrently
| | | | | | | |
(C) "Maintenance shall be calculated prior to child support because the amount
| | | | | | | | | | | |
of maintenance shall be subtracted from the payor's income and added to the
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
payee's income as part of the calculation of the child support obligation." DRL §
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
236 (B) (6) (c) (1) (g).
| | | | |
Susan and Carol got engaged on June 1, 2018. During this period, they discussed
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
a pre-nuptial agreement and orally agreed that neither party will pay alimony in
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
the event of a divorce. The couple wed on June 1, 2019. One year and one day
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
later, Carol filed for divorce after Susan cheated on Carol. Susan is now an
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
emotional wreck and has lost her job due to the stress. May Susan seek alimony?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
A. Yes, because the parties were married for more than one year
| | | | | | | | | | |
B. Yes, because the pre-nuptial agreement was not in writing
| | | | | | | | |
C. No, because a pre-nuptial agreement denying alimony to each party was
| | | | | | | | | | | |
formed
D. No, because the parties were not married for up to 10 years
| | | | | | | | | | | |
,(B) "An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing,
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required
| | | | | | | | | | | |
to entitle a deed to be recorded." DRL § 236 (b)(3).
| | | | | | | | | |
Paul recently formed Company, Inc. and serves as its president. After establishing
| | | | | | | | | | | |
the board and shareholders, the company now wants to hire an officer. The
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
certificate of incorporation is silent on how an officer may be elected. The
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
company interviewed Jake and wants to elect him as an officer. How may the
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
company elect Jake? | |
A. Paul alone may elect Jake
| | | | |
B. The shareholders alone may elect Jake
| | | | | |
C. The board alone may elect Jake
| | | | | |
D. The board or shareholders may elect Jake
| | | | | | |
(C) "(a) The board may elect or appoint a president, one or more vice-presidents,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
a secretary and a treasurer, and such other officers as it may determine, or as
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
may be provided in the by-laws.
| | | | |
(b) The certificate of incorporation may provide that all officers or that specified
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
officers shall be elected by the shareholders instead of by the board." BCL § 715
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(2021).
Brandon sued his former friend, Jason, after Brandon fell to the ground and
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
injured himself while leaving Jason’s property. Brandon was on the property to
| | | | | | | | | | | |
confront Jason about lying, but he had visited the property several times in the
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
past. If Brandon loses the case, it will be because:
| | | | | | | | |
A. Brandon was a trespasser
| | | |
B. Brandon was an invitee
| | | |
C. Jason did not maintain the property with reasonable care
| | | | | | | | |
D. Brandon was a licensee
| | | |
,(C) New York courts have "abandoned the classifications [of licensee, trespasser,
| | | | | | | | | | |
invitee] entirely and announced our adherence to the single standard of
| | | | | | | | | | |
reasonable care . . . ." Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 (1976). "An owner, lessee
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
or occupant of premises, whether or not posted as provided in section 11-2111 of
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|the environmental conservation law , owes no duty to keep the premises safe for
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, organized gleaning as defined in
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
section seventy-one-y of the agriculture and markets law , canoeing, boating,
| | | | | | | | | | |
trapping, hiking, cross-country skiing, tobogganing, sledding, speleological
| | | | | | |
activities, horseback riding, bicycle riding, hang gliding, motorized vehicle
| | | | | | | | |
operation for recreational purposes, snowmobile operation, cutting or gathering
| | | | | | | | |
of wood for non-commercial purposes or training of dogs, or to give warning of
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
any hazardous condition or use of or structure or activity on such premises to
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
persons entering for such purposes." GOL 9-103.
| | | | | |
Jennifer sued Adam in a special proceeding by filing a petition. Adam responded
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
with his answer and counterclaim, which raised a new issue. Jennifer responded
| | | | | | | | | | | |
with a reply. Adam responded with a surreply and separately asked for leave of
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
court to file a motion to join another party. Which of the following was NOT a
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
proper response in the action?
| | | |
A. Adam’s motion to join another party
| | | | | |
B. Adam’s surreply
| |
C. Jennifer’s reply
| |
D. Adam’s counterclaim
| |
"Parties. The party commencing a special proceeding shall be styled the
| | | | | | | | | | |
petitioner and any adverse party the respondent. After a proceeding is
| | | | | | | | | | |
commenced, no party shall be joined or interpleaded and no third-party practice
| | | | | | | | | | | |
or intervention shall be allowed, except by leave of court." CPLR § 401.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
"There shall be a petition, which shall comply with the requirements for a
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
complaint in an action, and an answer where there is an adverse party. There
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
shall be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such and there may be a reply
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
, to new matter in the answer in any case. The court may permit such other
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
pleadings as are authorized in an action upon such terms as it may specify. Where
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
there is no adverse party the petition shall state the result of any prior
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
application for similar relief and shall specify the new facts, if any, that were not
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
previously shown." CPLR § 402 | | | |
Allison had a great relationship with her daughter Elizabeth until Elizabeth
| | | | | | | | | | |
married David. Two years after the marriage, Allison used a pen to scratch out the
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
$200,00 she left to Elizabeth and wrote “$0” above that amount. All of the other
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
provisions in the will remained the same. Is Allison’s revocation effective?
| | | | | | | | | |
A. Yes, because partial revocation of a will by physical act is permitted
| | | | | | | | | | | |
B. Yes, because Allison entered a new amount above the scratched-out amount
| | | | | | | | | | |
C. No, because partial revocation of a will by physical act is not permitted
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
D. No, because the revocation violates public policy regarding the legal right to
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
marriage
(C) "(1) A will or any part thereof may be revoked or altered by: (A) Another will.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(B) A writing of the testator clearly indicating an intention to effect such
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
revocation or alteration, executed with the formalities prescribed by this article
| | | | | | | | | | |
for the execution and attestation of a will." EPTL 3-4.1 Partial revocation by
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
physical act is not allowed. | | | |
Luke owned Blackacre and sold it to Timothy in January 2020. Timothy, a bona
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
fide purchaser, did not record the conveyance. In March 2020, Luke sold
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Blackacre to Sarah, a bona fide purchaser, who recorded the conveyance in March
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|2020. In April 2020, Timothy recorded the conveyance. Who owns the property
| | | | | | | | | | | |
in May 2020?
| |
A. Timothy, because he is the first bona fide purchaser
| | | | | | | | |
B. Timothy, because he is the first bona fide purchaser and also recorded
| | | | | | | | | | | |
C. Sarah, because she is the last bona fide purchaser
| | | | | | | | |
D. Sarah, because she is a bona fide purchaser who recorded first
| | | | | | | | | | |
With Correct Answers
Paul and Peter were married for 10 years and have two children. In 2019, Paul
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
lost his job. The financial stress deteriorated the marriage, which caused Peter to
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
file for divorce. Peter is seeking joint custody and maintenance from Paul. How
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
should the court calculate maintenance and child support?
| | | | | | |
A. The parties calculate child support and seek court approval for maintenance
| | | | | | | | | | |
B. Child support should be calculated first
| | | | | |
C. Maintenance should be calculated first
| | | | |
D. Child support and maintenance should be calculated concurrently
| | | | | | | |
(C) "Maintenance shall be calculated prior to child support because the amount
| | | | | | | | | | | |
of maintenance shall be subtracted from the payor's income and added to the
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
payee's income as part of the calculation of the child support obligation." DRL §
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
236 (B) (6) (c) (1) (g).
| | | | |
Susan and Carol got engaged on June 1, 2018. During this period, they discussed
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
a pre-nuptial agreement and orally agreed that neither party will pay alimony in
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
the event of a divorce. The couple wed on June 1, 2019. One year and one day
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
later, Carol filed for divorce after Susan cheated on Carol. Susan is now an
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
emotional wreck and has lost her job due to the stress. May Susan seek alimony?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
A. Yes, because the parties were married for more than one year
| | | | | | | | | | |
B. Yes, because the pre-nuptial agreement was not in writing
| | | | | | | | |
C. No, because a pre-nuptial agreement denying alimony to each party was
| | | | | | | | | | | |
formed
D. No, because the parties were not married for up to 10 years
| | | | | | | | | | | |
,(B) "An agreement by the parties, made before or during the marriage, shall be
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
valid and enforceable in a matrimonial action if such agreement is in writing,
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
subscribed by the parties, and acknowledged or proven in the manner required
| | | | | | | | | | | |
to entitle a deed to be recorded." DRL § 236 (b)(3).
| | | | | | | | | |
Paul recently formed Company, Inc. and serves as its president. After establishing
| | | | | | | | | | | |
the board and shareholders, the company now wants to hire an officer. The
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
certificate of incorporation is silent on how an officer may be elected. The
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
company interviewed Jake and wants to elect him as an officer. How may the
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
company elect Jake? | |
A. Paul alone may elect Jake
| | | | |
B. The shareholders alone may elect Jake
| | | | | |
C. The board alone may elect Jake
| | | | | |
D. The board or shareholders may elect Jake
| | | | | | |
(C) "(a) The board may elect or appoint a president, one or more vice-presidents,
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
a secretary and a treasurer, and such other officers as it may determine, or as
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
may be provided in the by-laws.
| | | | |
(b) The certificate of incorporation may provide that all officers or that specified
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
officers shall be elected by the shareholders instead of by the board." BCL § 715
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(2021).
Brandon sued his former friend, Jason, after Brandon fell to the ground and
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
injured himself while leaving Jason’s property. Brandon was on the property to
| | | | | | | | | | | |
confront Jason about lying, but he had visited the property several times in the
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
past. If Brandon loses the case, it will be because:
| | | | | | | | |
A. Brandon was a trespasser
| | | |
B. Brandon was an invitee
| | | |
C. Jason did not maintain the property with reasonable care
| | | | | | | | |
D. Brandon was a licensee
| | | |
,(C) New York courts have "abandoned the classifications [of licensee, trespasser,
| | | | | | | | | | |
invitee] entirely and announced our adherence to the single standard of
| | | | | | | | | | |
reasonable care . . . ." Basso v Miller, 40 NY2d 233, 241 (1976). "An owner, lessee
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
or occupant of premises, whether or not posted as provided in section 11-2111 of
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
|the environmental conservation law , owes no duty to keep the premises safe for
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
entry or use by others for hunting, fishing, organized gleaning as defined in
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
section seventy-one-y of the agriculture and markets law , canoeing, boating,
| | | | | | | | | | |
trapping, hiking, cross-country skiing, tobogganing, sledding, speleological
| | | | | | |
activities, horseback riding, bicycle riding, hang gliding, motorized vehicle
| | | | | | | | |
operation for recreational purposes, snowmobile operation, cutting or gathering
| | | | | | | | |
of wood for non-commercial purposes or training of dogs, or to give warning of
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
any hazardous condition or use of or structure or activity on such premises to
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
persons entering for such purposes." GOL 9-103.
| | | | | |
Jennifer sued Adam in a special proceeding by filing a petition. Adam responded
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
with his answer and counterclaim, which raised a new issue. Jennifer responded
| | | | | | | | | | | |
with a reply. Adam responded with a surreply and separately asked for leave of
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
court to file a motion to join another party. Which of the following was NOT a
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
proper response in the action?
| | | |
A. Adam’s motion to join another party
| | | | | |
B. Adam’s surreply
| |
C. Jennifer’s reply
| |
D. Adam’s counterclaim
| |
"Parties. The party commencing a special proceeding shall be styled the
| | | | | | | | | | |
petitioner and any adverse party the respondent. After a proceeding is
| | | | | | | | | | |
commenced, no party shall be joined or interpleaded and no third-party practice
| | | | | | | | | | | |
or intervention shall be allowed, except by leave of court." CPLR § 401.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
"There shall be a petition, which shall comply with the requirements for a
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
complaint in an action, and an answer where there is an adverse party. There
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
shall be a reply to a counterclaim denominated as such and there may be a reply
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
, to new matter in the answer in any case. The court may permit such other
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
pleadings as are authorized in an action upon such terms as it may specify. Where
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
there is no adverse party the petition shall state the result of any prior
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
application for similar relief and shall specify the new facts, if any, that were not
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
previously shown." CPLR § 402 | | | |
Allison had a great relationship with her daughter Elizabeth until Elizabeth
| | | | | | | | | | |
married David. Two years after the marriage, Allison used a pen to scratch out the
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
$200,00 she left to Elizabeth and wrote “$0” above that amount. All of the other
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
provisions in the will remained the same. Is Allison’s revocation effective?
| | | | | | | | | |
A. Yes, because partial revocation of a will by physical act is permitted
| | | | | | | | | | | |
B. Yes, because Allison entered a new amount above the scratched-out amount
| | | | | | | | | | |
C. No, because partial revocation of a will by physical act is not permitted
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
D. No, because the revocation violates public policy regarding the legal right to
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
marriage
(C) "(1) A will or any part thereof may be revoked or altered by: (A) Another will.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
(B) A writing of the testator clearly indicating an intention to effect such
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
revocation or alteration, executed with the formalities prescribed by this article
| | | | | | | | | | |
for the execution and attestation of a will." EPTL 3-4.1 Partial revocation by
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
physical act is not allowed. | | | |
Luke owned Blackacre and sold it to Timothy in January 2020. Timothy, a bona
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
fide purchaser, did not record the conveyance. In March 2020, Luke sold
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Blackacre to Sarah, a bona fide purchaser, who recorded the conveyance in March
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|2020. In April 2020, Timothy recorded the conveyance. Who owns the property
| | | | | | | | | | | |
in May 2020?
| |
A. Timothy, because he is the first bona fide purchaser
| | | | | | | | |
B. Timothy, because he is the first bona fide purchaser and also recorded
| | | | | | | | | | | |
C. Sarah, because she is the last bona fide purchaser
| | | | | | | | |
D. Sarah, because she is a bona fide purchaser who recorded first
| | | | | | | | | | |
