Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld

291 A.D.2d 286, 737 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 286 (Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld) 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

Hirschfeld v. Hirschfeld, 291 A.D.2d 286, 737 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about December 27, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, determined that plaintiff has a one percent interest in the subject partnership, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having reviewed the evidence that formed the basis for the memorandum order, in which the trial court expressly resolved questions of credibility, we find that such evidence, fairly interpreted, permitted the trial court’s conclusion as to plaintiffs ownership interest in the subject partnership (see, e.g., Haymes v Haymes, 252 AD2d 438).

[287]*287We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, 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 (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered on or about December 27, 1999, which, after a nonjury trial, determined that plaintiff has a one percent interest in the subject partnership, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Having reviewed the evidence that formed the basis for the memorandum order, in which the trial court expressly resolved questions of credibility, we find that such evidence, fairly interpreted, permitted the trial court’s conclusion as to plaintiffs ownership interest in the subject partnership (see, e.g., Haymes v Haymes, 252 AD2d 438).

[287]*287We have considered plaintiffs remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 286, 737 N.Y.S.2d 292, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hirschfeld-v-hirschfeld-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack