Annibaffa v. Annibaffa

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Annibaffa v. Annibaffa

34 A.D.3d 345, 826 N.Y.S.2d 189

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

DecidedNovember 21, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 345 (Annibaffa v. Annibaffa) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Annibaffa v. Annibaffa, 34 A.D.3d 345, 826 N.Y.S.2d 189 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Ostermann, Special Referee), entered March 14, 2006, which granted defendant husband an equitable share of the marital estate, including plaintiff wife’s employee pension/annuity plans and the marital residence, unanimously modified, on the law, the matter remanded to the Special Referee for further proceedings in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for reargument was properly granted, even though untimely (Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 20 [1986]), because the court had overlooked facts offered on his prior motion to vacate the default judgment of divorce, specifically, his lack of notice of the equitable distribution hearing. This was not a frivolous motion warranting sanctions. Nonetheless, the case should be remanded because the Referee failed to evaluate the marital property sufficiently (Capasso v Capasso, 119 AD2d 268 [1986]), or to set a valuation date on the property (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4] [b]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Ostermann, Special Referee), entered March 14, 2006, which granted defendant husband an equitable share of the marital estate, including plaintiff wife’s employee pension/annuity plans and the marital residence, unanimously modified, on the law, the matter remanded to the Special Referee for further proceedings in accordance herewith, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s motion for reargument was properly granted, even though untimely (Liss v Trans Auto Sys., 68 NY2d 15, 20 [1986]), because the court had overlooked facts offered on his prior motion to vacate the default judgment of divorce, specifically, his lack of notice of the equitable distribution hearing. This was not a frivolous motion warranting sanctions. Nonetheless, the case should be remanded because the Referee failed to evaluate the marital property sufficiently (Capasso v Capasso, 119 AD2d 268 [1986]), or to set a valuation date on the property (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4] [b]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Saxe, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 345, 826 N.Y.S.2d 189, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/annibaffa-v-annibaffa-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack