Gorzalkowski v. Gorzalkowski

190 A.D.2d 1067, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1306
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 5, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 1067 (Gorzalkowski v. Gorzalkowski) 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
Gorzalkowski v. Gorzalkowski, 190 A.D.2d 1067, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1306 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: In determining the equitable distribution of the parties’ assets and in setting a maintenance award, Supreme Court failed to set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its determinations (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [g]; [6] [b]). Although this Court may make its own findings, the record is not sufficiently developed to allow for intelligent appellate review (cf, Tarpinian v Tarpinian, 160 AD2d 1063, 1064; Duffy v Duffy, 94 AD2d 711, 712). There is no competent proof in the record concerning the value of the assets (see, Norgauer v Norgauer, 126 AD2d 957, 958), nor did the court resolve the conflicting claims of the parties concerning their ownership interests in marital and separate property (see, Diaehuk v Diachuk, 117 AD2d 985). Moreover, the court did not explore in sufficient detail the relative financial circumstances of the parties, including the extent of defendant’s disability and plaintiffs ability to become self-supporting. Consequently, we reverse the judgment insofar as it distributed the assets and awarded maintenance and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a further hearing and for appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law. The modification of the judgment does not affect that portion of the judgment that granted plaintiff a divorce based upon cruel and inhuman treatment. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. —Divorce.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

Related

MURPHY, BRIAN v. MURPHY, CHRISTINE
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015
MARSHALL, KAREN M. v. MARSHALL, DANIEL R.
124 A.D.3d 1314 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
McPheeters v. McPheeters
284 A.D.2d 968 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Garrison-Horgan v. Horgan
234 A.D.2d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Gramatyka v. Gramatyka
203 A.D.2d 913 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Murphy v. Murphy
193 A.D.2d 1068 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 A.D.2d 1067, 594 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gorzalkowski-v-gorzalkowski-nyappdiv-1993.