Buffman v. Buffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Buffman v. Buffman

267 A.D.2d 343, 699 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13145

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 267 A.D.2d 343 (Buffman v. Buffman) 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

Buffman v. Buffman, 267 A.D.2d 343, 699 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13145 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated September 11, 1998, as awarded equitable distribution.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“Equitable distribution presents matters of fact to be resolved by the trial court, and its distribution of the parties’ marital property should not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in so doing” (Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515; see, Petrie v Petrie, 124 AD2d 449, 450; Foxx v Foxx, 114 AD2d 605, 606). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in distributing the marital property in this case (see, Oster v Goldberg, supra). Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, 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 appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), dated September 11, 1998, as awarded equitable distribution.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

“Equitable distribution presents matters of fact to be resolved by the trial court, and its distribution of the parties’ marital property should not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in so doing” (Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515; see, Petrie v Petrie, 124 AD2d 449, 450; Foxx v Foxx, 114 AD2d 605, 606). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in distributing the marital property in this case (see, Oster v Goldberg, supra). Sullivan, J. P., Friedmann, Feuerstein and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 343, 699 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13145, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buffman-v-buffman-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack