Bullaro v. Bullaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bullaro v. Bullaro

231 A.D.2d 666, 648 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9714

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 666 (Bullaro v. Bullaro) 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

Bullaro v. Bullaro, 231 A.D.2d 666, 648 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9714 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated September 28, 1995, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff husband 50% of the value of the marital residence and 50% of the value of her pension.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the third decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a decretal paragraph denying the husband’s application for equitable distribution of the marital residence; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The trial court should have denied equitable distribution of the marital residence to the husband under the "clean hands” doctrine since Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) (13) requires that the court do equity by considering "any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper”. This doctrine precludes equitable distribution of the marital residence because the husband testified that on the advice of a "lawyer friend”, he transferred the marital residence to the wife in 1983, in order to protect the property from his judgment creditors (see, Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358).

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Altman, 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 wife appeals from stated portions of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gartenstein, J.H.O.), dated September 28, 1995, which, inter alia, awarded the plaintiff husband 50% of the value of the marital residence and 50% of the value of her pension.

Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the third decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor a decretal paragraph denying the husband’s application for equitable distribution of the marital residence; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The trial court should have denied equitable distribution of the marital residence to the husband under the "clean hands” doctrine since Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) (13) requires that the court do equity by considering "any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper”. This doctrine precludes equitable distribution of the marital residence because the husband testified that on the advice of a "lawyer friend”, he transferred the marital residence to the wife in 1983, in order to protect the property from his judgment creditors (see, Langdon v Langdon, 138 AD2d 358).

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 666, 648 N.Y.S.2d 46, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9714, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bullaro-v-bullaro-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack