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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 27, 2000·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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.

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

273 A.D.2d 164 (Havell v. Islam) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related