Haran v. Haran

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Haran v. Haran

282 A.D.2d 572, 723 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3780

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

DecidedApril 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 282 A.D.2d 572 (Haran v. Haran) 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

Haran v. Haran, 282 A.D.2d 572, 723 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated August 11, 1999, as, after a nonjury trial on the issue of equitable distribution, valued the marital residence as of the date of the commencement of the action.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly valued the marital residence as of the date of the commencement of the action. “[VJaluation is an exercise properly within the fact-finding power of the trial courts, guided by expert testimony” (Burns v Burns, 84 NY2d 369, 375). On this record, we find that the trial court providently exercised its discretion in this matter and the determination will not be disturbed. Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, 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 appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated August 11, 1999, as, after a nonjury trial on the issue of equitable distribution, valued the marital residence as of the date of the commencement of the action.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the trial court properly valued the marital residence as of the date of the commencement of the action. “[VJaluation is an exercise properly within the fact-finding power of the trial courts, guided by expert testimony” (Burns v Burns, 84 NY2d 369, 375). On this record, we find that the trial court providently exercised its discretion in this matter and the determination will not be disturbed. Bracken, P. J., O’Brien, Florio and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 572, 723 N.Y.S.2d 374, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haran-v-haran-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack