Ehrlich v. Ehrlich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ehrlich v. Ehrlich

184 A.D.2d 400

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

DecidedJune 23, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 184 A.D.2d 400 (Ehrlich v. Ehrlich) 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

Ehrlich v. Ehrlich, 184 A.D.2d 400 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.) entered December 6, 1991, which, inter alia, awarded equitable distribution and spousal maintenance in amounts claimed to be insufficient, and denied defendant experts’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly considered the criteria set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) in determining equitable distribution, awarding defendant an interest in the net appreciation of plaintiff’s separate property to the extent her direct or indirect contributions were causally related to that appreciation (Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8). "[T]here is no requirement that the distribution of each item of marital property be on an equal or 50-50 basis” (Arvantides v Arvantides, 64 NY2d 1033, 1034). The court also properly credited the appraisals of plaintiff’s experts and discredited those of defendant. In light of defendant’s substantial marital and separate property, the award of maintenance was sufficient as to amount and reasonable as to duration (see, Brennan v Brennan, 103 AD2d 48, 50-51). Finally, as defendant had sufficient funds from which to pay her experts, it was proper for the court to deny her request (Rodgers v Rodgers, 98 AD2d 386, 393). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carmen Beauchamp Ciparick, J.) entered December 6, 1991, which, inter alia, awarded equitable distribution and spousal maintenance in amounts claimed to be insufficient, and denied defendant experts’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The IAS court properly considered the criteria set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) in determining equitable distribution, awarding defendant an interest in the net appreciation of plaintiff’s separate property to the extent her direct or indirect contributions were causally related to that appreciation (Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8). "[T]here is no requirement that the distribution of each item of marital property be on an equal or 50-50 basis” (Arvantides v Arvantides, 64 NY2d 1033, 1034). The court also properly credited the appraisals of plaintiff’s experts and discredited those of defendant. In light of defendant’s substantial marital and separate property, the award of maintenance was sufficient as to amount and reasonable as to duration (see, Brennan v Brennan, 103 AD2d 48, 50-51). Finally, as defendant had sufficient funds from which to pay her experts, it was proper for the court to deny her request (Rodgers v Rodgers, 98 AD2d 386, 393). Concur — Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Rosenberger, Ross and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

184 A.D.2d 400, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ehrlich-v-ehrlich-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack