Havell v. Islam

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Havell v. Islam

273 A.D.2d 164, 710 N.Y.S.2d 51, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7516

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

DecidedJune 27, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 164 (Havell v. Islam) 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

Havell v. Islam, 273 A.D.2d 164, 710 N.Y.S.2d 51, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7516 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered June 23 and October 26, 1999, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, distributing the proceeds of sale of the parties’ marital residence on certain conditions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court’s pretrial distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence provides for the reasonable needs of both parties. Defendant’s possible need for more money in the future was adequately addressed with the express permis[165]*165sion given to him to ask for more money as additional assets become liquid. We reject defendant’s argument that the distribution was based on criteria not specified in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6). His appropriate remedy for any perceived inequity in this pendente lite award is a prompt trial (Anonymous v Anonymous, 241 AD2d 353). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered June 23 and October 26, 1999, insofar as appealed from as limited by the briefs, distributing the proceeds of sale of the parties’ marital residence on certain conditions, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The motion court’s pretrial distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence provides for the reasonable needs of both parties. Defendant’s possible need for more money in the future was adequately addressed with the express permis[165]*165sion given to him to ask for more money as additional assets become liquid. We reject defendant’s argument that the distribution was based on criteria not specified in Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6). His appropriate remedy for any perceived inequity in this pendente lite award is a prompt trial (Anonymous v Anonymous, 241 AD2d 353). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Mazzarelli, Wallach and Lerner, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 164, 710 N.Y.S.2d 51, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7516, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/havell-v-islam-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack