Aronne v. Aronne

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aronne v. Aronne

275 A.D.2d 755, 714 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9404

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 755 (Aronne v. Aronne) 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

Aronne v. Aronne, 275 A.D.2d 755, 714 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9404 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.H.O.), entered December 8, 1998, as, after a non-jury trial, equitably distributed certain of the marital assets of the parties.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in the equitable distribution of certain of the marital assets (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c], [d]; Miller v Miller, 128 AD2d 844; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481; Wiercinski v Wiercinski, 116 AD2d 789). Florio, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Beldock, J.H.O.), entered December 8, 1998, as, after a non-jury trial, equitably distributed certain of the marital assets of the parties.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in the equitable distribution of certain of the marital assets (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c], [d]; Miller v Miller, 128 AD2d 844; Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481; Wiercinski v Wiercinski, 116 AD2d 789). Florio, J. P., Luciano, Feuerstein and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 755, 714 N.Y.S.2d 231, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aronne-v-aronne-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack