Coccetti v. Coccetti

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coccetti v. Coccetti

236 A.D.2d 506, 654 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1438

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 236 A.D.2d 506 (Coccetti v. Coccetti) 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

Coccetti v. Coccetti, 236 A.D.2d 506, 654 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1438 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modugno, J.H.O.), entered March 15, 1994, which, inter alia, failed to award her counsel fees and awarded her maintenance of only $200 per week for only six years, and the plaintiff husband cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same judgment as,' in effect, denied equitable distribution of the wife’s pension.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, denied equitable distribution of the wife’s pension; as so modified the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) requires the court to determine the rights of the parties in marital property and to provide for the disposition of such property in the final judgment. Here, the Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) failed to specifically address the wife’s pension or provide for its disposition in the judgment. Therefore, we remit the matter to the JHO to consider the wife’s pension and account for it in his decision (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [g]).

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying counsel fees to the wife (see, DeCabrera v CabreraRosete, 70 NY2d 879; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576; Spier v Spier, 228 AD2d 661).

We have examined the wife’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Goldstein, 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, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Modugno, J.H.O.), entered March 15, 1994, which, inter alia, failed to award her counsel fees and awarded her maintenance of only $200 per week for only six years, and the plaintiff husband cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of the same judgment as,' in effect, denied equitable distribution of the wife’s pension.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which, in effect, denied equitable distribution of the wife’s pension; as so modified the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) requires the court to determine the rights of the parties in marital property and to provide for the disposition of such property in the final judgment. Here, the Judicial Hearing Officer (hereinafter JHO) failed to specifically address the wife’s pension or provide for its disposition in the judgment. Therefore, we remit the matter to the JHO to consider the wife’s pension and account for it in his decision (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [g]).

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying counsel fees to the wife (see, DeCabrera v CabreraRosete, 70 NY2d 879; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576; Spier v Spier, 228 AD2d 661).

We have examined the wife’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Rosenblatt, J. P., Sullivan, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 506, 654 N.Y.S.2d 620, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1438, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coccetti-v-coccetti-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack