Hansen v. Hansen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hansen v. Hansen

207 A.D.2d 824, 616 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8886

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

DecidedSeptember 19, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 207 A.D.2d 824 (Hansen v. Hansen) 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

Hansen v. Hansen, 207 A.D.2d 824, 616 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated June 22, 1992, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, directed that the plaintiff maintain health insurance for the defendant, adjudged that the plaintiff dissipated a marital asset, and directed that the plaintiff pay to the defendant counsel fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s contention that there was no evidence that he wasted an asset of the marriage, i.e. an apartment building, is without merit. The evidence adduced at trial was that the plaintiff collected rent from the tenants, made some repairs to the building, and gained access to electricity through one of his tenant’s boxes. There was no evidence at all that the defendant participated in the management of the building. The building was sold at a loss and with more housing code violations at the time of sale than at the time it [825]*825was purchased. Therefore, the Court had before it sufficient evidence to find that the plaintiff wasted the asset and to take this into consideration when making an equitable distribution of the parties’ assets (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [11], Wilner v Wilner, 192 AD2d 524).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated June 22, 1992, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, directed that the plaintiff maintain health insurance for the defendant, adjudged that the plaintiff dissipated a marital asset, and directed that the plaintiff pay to the defendant counsel fees.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff’s contention that there was no evidence that he wasted an asset of the marriage, i.e. an apartment building, is without merit. The evidence adduced at trial was that the plaintiff collected rent from the tenants, made some repairs to the building, and gained access to electricity through one of his tenant’s boxes. There was no evidence at all that the defendant participated in the management of the building. The building was sold at a loss and with more housing code violations at the time of sale than at the time it [825]*825was purchased. Therefore, the Court had before it sufficient evidence to find that the plaintiff wasted the asset and to take this into consideration when making an equitable distribution of the parties’ assets (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [11], Wilner v Wilner, 192 AD2d 524).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Santucci and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 824, 616 N.Y.S.2d 637, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hansen-v-hansen-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack