Brown v. Brown

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brown v. Brown

203 A.D.2d 912, 611 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899

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

DecidedApril 15, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 912 (Brown v. Brown) 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

Brown v. Brown, 203 A.D.2d 912, 611 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff 25% of the appreciation in defendant’s Investment Management Account at Chase Lincoln First Bank. The account was defendant’s separate property and the appreciation in the account during the marriage was not due to defendant’s efforts but, rather, was due to the bank’s management of the account, market forces, and the 1984 deposit of an inheritance from defendant’s father. Consequently, plaintiff has no claim to a share of the appreciation (see, Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8, 18; Robertson v Robertson, 186 AD2d 124). We modify the judgment, therefore, to reduce plaintiffs distributive award from $96,989.50 to $47,039.50, and otherwise affirm. We have examined defendant’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from [913]*913Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wagner, J.H.O. —Equitable Distribution.) Present — Denman, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff 25% of the appreciation in defendant’s Investment Management Account at Chase Lincoln First Bank. The account was defendant’s separate property and the appreciation in the account during the marriage was not due to defendant’s efforts but, rather, was due to the bank’s management of the account, market forces, and the 1984 deposit of an inheritance from defendant’s father. Consequently, plaintiff has no claim to a share of the appreciation (see, Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8, 18; Robertson v Robertson, 186 AD2d 124). We modify the judgment, therefore, to reduce plaintiffs distributive award from $96,989.50 to $47,039.50, and otherwise affirm. We have examined defendant’s remaining argument and find it to be without merit. (Appeal from [913]*913Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Wagner, J.H.O. —Equitable Distribution.) Present — Denman, P. J., Balio, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 912, 611 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brown-v-brown-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack