Banker v. Banker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banker v. Banker

248 A.D.2d 144, 670 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2025

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 144 (Banker v. Banker) 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

Banker v. Banker, 248 A.D.2d 144, 670 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2025 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered January 31, 1997, in an action for divorce, inter alia, distributing the parties’ property, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 12, 1996, which granted plaintiffs motion to confirm, and denied defendant’s cross motion to reject, the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer dated May 8, 1996, to whom the financial issues of the marriage were referred on the parties’ stipulation, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from said order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

The Judicial Hearing Officer’s findings, in large part based on credible expert testimony, have support in the record, and were properly confirmed by the trial court in the exercise of its wide discretion with respect to equitable distribution (see, Po-loge v Goler, 194 AD2d 445; Freedman v Freedman, 211 AD2d 580). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Phyllis Gangel-Jacob, J.), entered January 31, 1997, in an action for divorce, inter alia, distributing the parties’ property, and bringing up for review an order, same court and Justice, entered September 12, 1996, which granted plaintiffs motion to confirm, and denied defendant’s cross motion to reject, the report of the Judicial Hearing Officer dated May 8, 1996, to whom the financial issues of the marriage were referred on the parties’ stipulation, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from said order unanimously dismissed, without costs, as subsumed within the appeal from the judgment.

The Judicial Hearing Officer’s findings, in large part based on credible expert testimony, have support in the record, and were properly confirmed by the trial court in the exercise of its wide discretion with respect to equitable distribution (see, Po-loge v Goler, 194 AD2d 445; Freedman v Freedman, 211 AD2d 580). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Ellerin, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 144, 670 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2025, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/banker-v-banker-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack