Arquiette v. Arquiette

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Arquiette v. Arquiette

198 A.D.2d 858, 604 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11490

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 858 (Arquiette v. Arquiette) 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

Arquiette v. Arquiette, 198 A.D.2d 858, 604 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11490 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On remittal (see, Arquiette v Arquiette, 177 AD2d 956) and after a hearing, Supreme Court determined that plaintiff’s failure to disclose the fact that he had sold a quantity of standing timber from a 20-acre woodlot did not render the parties’ stipulation distributing marital property unfair or inequitable. That determination is not contrary to the weight of the evidence. The record reveals that a greater part of the sale proceeds was expended toward improvements to the marital residence and maintenance of crops and fields on this farm property. Further, expert opinion testimony indicated that the selective trimming of the woodlot pursuant to a plan developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did not diminish, and may have enhanced, the value of the property.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Purple, Jr., J. — Set Aside Stipulation.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Doerr and Boomer, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On remittal (see, Arquiette v Arquiette, 177 AD2d 956) and after a hearing, Supreme Court determined that plaintiff’s failure to disclose the fact that he had sold a quantity of standing timber from a 20-acre woodlot did not render the parties’ stipulation distributing marital property unfair or inequitable. That determination is not contrary to the weight of the evidence. The record reveals that a greater part of the sale proceeds was expended toward improvements to the marital residence and maintenance of crops and fields on this farm property. Further, expert opinion testimony indicated that the selective trimming of the woodlot pursuant to a plan developed by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation did not diminish, and may have enhanced, the value of the property.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it lacks merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Steuben County, Purple, Jr., J. — Set Aside Stipulation.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Pine, Balio, Doerr and Boomer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 858, 604 N.Y.S.2d 427, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11490, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arquiette-v-arquiette-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack