Camacho v. Camacho

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Camacho v. Camacho

214 A.D.2d 1000, 627 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6747

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

DecidedApril 28, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 214 A.D.2d 1000 (Camacho v. Camacho) 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

Camacho v. Camacho, 214 A.D.2d 1000, 627 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6747 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff maintenance of $150 per week for 12 years or until plaintiff begins receiving Social Security benefits, whichever shall occur first (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Loeb v Loeb, 186 AD2d 174, 175).

The record does not support defendant’s contention that the Referee failed to take into account the tax consequences to each party upon the distribution of marital assets (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [10]).

Finally, defendant contends that it was error for the Referee to find that the marital residence had an agreed appraised value of $100,000. Having failed to contest the Referee’s report and the judgment entered thereon at Supreme Court, defendant cannot challenge that finding on appeal (see, Marine Midland Bank v Brown, 115 AD2d 523, 524, lv denied 67 NY2d 607). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J.—Equitable Distribution.) Present—Fallon, J. P., Wesley, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in awarding plaintiff maintenance of $150 per week for 12 years or until plaintiff begins receiving Social Security benefits, whichever shall occur first (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [6] [a]; Loeb v Loeb, 186 AD2d 174, 175).

The record does not support defendant’s contention that the Referee failed to take into account the tax consequences to each party upon the distribution of marital assets (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [10]).

Finally, defendant contends that it was error for the Referee to find that the marital residence had an agreed appraised value of $100,000. Having failed to contest the Referee’s report and the judgment entered thereon at Supreme Court, defendant cannot challenge that finding on appeal (see, Marine Midland Bank v Brown, 115 AD2d 523, 524, lv denied 67 NY2d 607). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cosgrove, J.—Equitable Distribution.) Present—Fallon, J. P., Wesley, Doerr, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

214 A.D.2d 1000, 627 N.Y.S.2d 593, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6747, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/camacho-v-camacho-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack