Fritz v. Fritz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fritz v. Fritz

267 A.D.2d 349, 699 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13137

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 349 (Fritz v. Fritz) 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

Fritz v. Fritz, 267 A.D.2d 349, 699 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13137 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), entered July 9, 1998, as (1) determined certain property to be the wife’s separate property, and (2) directed the sale of certain real property located in the Bahamas.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion on appeal, the court’s determination that the contested brokerage firm account was the plaintiffs separate property was amply supported by the evidence adduced at trial.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit, unpreserved for appellate review, or not properly before this Court on appeal. Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and McGinity, 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 husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lifson, J.), entered July 9, 1998, as (1) determined certain property to be the wife’s separate property, and (2) directed the sale of certain real property located in the Bahamas.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s assertion on appeal, the court’s determination that the contested brokerage firm account was the plaintiffs separate property was amply supported by the evidence adduced at trial.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either without merit, unpreserved for appellate review, or not properly before this Court on appeal. Ritter, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 349, 699 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fritz-v-fritz-nyappdiv-1999.