Fabrizio v. Fabrizio

125 A.D.2d 634, 510 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62923
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 31, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 634 (Fabrizio v. Fabrizio) 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
Fabrizio v. Fabrizio, 125 A.D.2d 634, 510 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62923 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, the defendant wife appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Spatt, J., on the judgment; Vitale, J., on the decision), dated November 20, 1984, as (1) imposed a constructive trust for the benefit of the plaintiff husband upon certain real and personal property, and (2) directed the plaintiff husband to pay only the sum of $9,180 as arrears due under a temporary support order.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting from the fifth decretal paragraph thereof the figure of "$9,180” and substituting therefor the figure "$13,848”, and by deleting from the sixth decretal paragraph therof the figure of "$9,180”, and substituting therefor the figure "$13,848.” As so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

We modify the judgment to reflect the fact that the trial court improperly credited the plaintiff husband with voluntary payments he made to the parties’ children towards the sum of money owed the defendant wife under a temporary maintenance and support order. We also note that under the circumstances of this case, the court properly imposed a constructive trust for the plaintiff’s benefit upon certain real and personal property held by the defendant (see, Simonds v Simonds, 45 NY2d 233, 241; Sharp v Kosmalski, 40 NY2d 119, 121; Coco v Coco, 107 AD2d 21; Goodman v Goodman, 84 AD2d 344; Saff v Saff, 61 AD2d 452). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Fiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Lee v. Lee
279 A.D.2d 629 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Ferraro v. Ferraro
257 A.D.2d 598 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Verdrager v. Verdrager
230 A.D.2d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Minka v. Minka
219 A.D.2d 810 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Lefkow v. Lefkow
188 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Krantz v. Krantz
175 A.D.2d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Kerpen v. Kerpen
172 A.D.2d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
125 A.D.2d 634, 510 N.Y.S.2d 9, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fabrizio-v-fabrizio-nyappdiv-1986.