Curry v. Curry

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Curry v. Curry

290 A.D.2d 474, 736 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 485

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 290 A.D.2d 474 (Curry v. Curry) 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

Curry v. Curry, 290 A.D.2d 474, 736 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 485 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 8, 1997, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Harkavy, J.), dated April 5, 2000, which, after a hearing to determine, inter alia, the equitable distribution of certain property that was not distributed pursuant to the judgment of divorce, directed the defendant to reimburse him for only one half of pension loan payments he made subsequent to the date of the judgment.

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

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff reimbursement from the defendant for one half of the pension loan payments he made subsequent to the date of the parties’ judgment of divorce. The Supreme Court properly attributed those payments to loans taken out by the plaintiff after the divorce action was commenced, for which the defendant was not responsible.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 8, 1997, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Harkavy, J.), dated April 5, 2000, which, after a hearing to determine, inter alia, the equitable distribution of certain property that was not distributed pursuant to the judgment of divorce, directed the defendant to reimburse him for only one half of pension loan payments he made subsequent to the date of the judgment.

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

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff reimbursement from the defendant for one half of the pension loan payments he made subsequent to the date of the parties’ judgment of divorce. The Supreme Court properly attributed those payments to loans taken out by the plaintiff after the divorce action was commenced, for which the defendant was not responsible.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., Feuerstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

290 A.D.2d 474, 736 N.Y.S.2d 250, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 485, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curry-v-curry-nyappdiv-2002.