Grunfeld v. Grunfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grunfeld v. Grunfeld

281 A.D.2d 338, 722 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3205

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 338 (Grunfeld v. Grunfeld) 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

Grunfeld v. Grunfeld, 281 A.D.2d 338, 722 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3205 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered March 7, 2000, which, inter alia, treated two securities accounts in defendant’s name as marital property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s claim that the two accounts are his separate property was properly rejected in the absence of evidence satisfying his burden of identifying the sources of his contributions thereto, or otherwise distinguishing his alleged separate property from marital property (see, LeRoy v LeRoy, 274 AD2d 362). Defendant’s vague and general references to contributions made from his professional and personal accounts are not supported by evidentiary proof, and do not raise any genuine issues of fact warranting a hearing. Defendant has had ample opportunity to adduce such proof. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered March 7, 2000, which, inter alia, treated two securities accounts in defendant’s name as marital property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s claim that the two accounts are his separate property was properly rejected in the absence of evidence satisfying his burden of identifying the sources of his contributions thereto, or otherwise distinguishing his alleged separate property from marital property (see, LeRoy v LeRoy, 274 AD2d 362). Defendant’s vague and general references to contributions made from his professional and personal accounts are not supported by evidentiary proof, and do not raise any genuine issues of fact warranting a hearing. Defendant has had ample opportunity to adduce such proof. Concur — Williams, J. P., Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 338, 722 N.Y.S.2d 513, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3205, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grunfeld-v-grunfeld-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack