Freiman v. Horn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freiman v. Horn

27 A.D.3d 261, 809 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedMarch 9, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 27 A.D.3d 261 (Freiman v. Horn) 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

Freiman v. Horn, 27 A.D.3d 261, 809 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W Silbermann, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion for re-argument, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of plaintiff.

Defendant has not presented an appealable order for our review (Marine Midland Bank v Freedom Rd. Realty Assoc., 203 AD2d 538 [1994]). The motion was properly denominated as one for reargument. Even were we to review, we would find that the court’s adherence to its prior decision with respect to the methodology for valuing the marital residence was neither inequitable nor an abuse of discretion (Poster v Poster, 287 AD2d 411 [2001]). Nor did defendant establish, by legally adequate proof, any changed financial circumstances warranting the remaining relief she seeks. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

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

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W Silbermann, J.), entered on or about October 7, 2004, which denied defendant’s motion for re-argument, unanimously dismissed, with costs in favor of plaintiff.

Defendant has not presented an appealable order for our review (Marine Midland Bank v Freedom Rd. Realty Assoc., 203 AD2d 538 [1994]). The motion was properly denominated as one for reargument. Even were we to review, we would find that the court’s adherence to its prior decision with respect to the methodology for valuing the marital residence was neither inequitable nor an abuse of discretion (Poster v Poster, 287 AD2d 411 [2001]). Nor did defendant establish, by legally adequate proof, any changed financial circumstances warranting the remaining relief she seeks. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Marlow, Sullivan, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 261, 809 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freiman-v-horn-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack