Gitman v. Gitman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gitman v. Gitman

8 A.D.3d 166, 778 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8663

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

DecidedJune 22, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 8 A.D.3d 166 (Gitman v. Gitman) 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

Gitman v. Gitman, 8 A.D.3d 166, 778 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8663 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[167]*167Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.H.O.), entered June 6, 2003, inter alia, awarding defendant exclusive possession and title of the marital residence and allocating marital debt equally between the parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award is amply supported by the record. The parties’ other liabilities were entirely marital in nature and incurred as a result of jointly made investment decisions that benefitted plaintiff as much as defendant (see Barnes v Barnes, 106 AD2d 535 [1984]; Savage v Savage, 155 AD2d 336 [1989]). No basis exists to disturb the Judicial Hearing Officer’s findings of credibility We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

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

[167]*167Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.H.O.), entered June 6, 2003, inter alia, awarding defendant exclusive possession and title of the marital residence and allocating marital debt equally between the parties, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The award is amply supported by the record. The parties’ other liabilities were entirely marital in nature and incurred as a result of jointly made investment decisions that benefitted plaintiff as much as defendant (see Barnes v Barnes, 106 AD2d 535 [1984]; Savage v Savage, 155 AD2d 336 [1989]). No basis exists to disturb the Judicial Hearing Officer’s findings of credibility We have considered plaintiffs other arguments and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Gonzalez and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 166, 778 N.Y.S.2d 685, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8663, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gitman-v-gitman-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack