Jones-Bertrand v. Bertrand

59 A.D.3d 391, 874 N.Y.S.2d 152
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 3, 2009
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 391 (Jones-Bertrand v. Bertrand) 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
Jones-Bertrand v. Bertrand, 59 A.D.3d 391, 874 N.Y.S.2d 152 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the former husband appeals, as limited by his notice of appeal and brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Krauss, J.), dated December 27, 2006, which, upon a decision of the same court dated October 16, 2006, made after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded the former wife a distributive award in the sum of $36,233.45.

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

In reviewing a determination as to equitable distribution, the trial court’s assessment of the credibility of witnesses is afforded great weight on appeal (see Grasso v Grasso, 47 AD3d 762, 764 [2008]). Moreover, trial courts are vested with broad discretion in determining distributive awards (see Saleh v Saleh, 40 AD3d 617, 618 [2007]; Shifer v Shifer, 27 AD3d 549 [2006]; Sebag v Sebag, 294 AD2d 560 [2002]; Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515 [1996]).

Upon consideration of each party’s credibility and the particular facts presented in this case, we perceive no basis for disturbing the trial court’s determination regarding the equitable distribution of the parties’ property, as the trial court providently exercised its discretion. In particular, we agree with [392]*392the trial court that the former wife’s testimony regarding the former husband’s international wire transfers of marital assets was credible, while the former husband’s explanation of the wire transfers, which he admitted that he executed, was not credible.

The parties’ remaining contentions either involve matter dehors the record or are without merit. Spolzino, J.E, Santucci, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bruzzese v. Bruzzese
2017 NY Slip Op 5579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Gonzalez v. Garcia
134 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Carr-Harris v. Carr-Harris
98 A.D.3d 548 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Franco v. Franco
97 A.D.3d 785 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Aloi v. Simoni
82 A.D.3d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Alper v. Alper
77 A.D.3d 694 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Raville v. Elnomany
76 A.D.2d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Schwartz v. Schwartz
67 A.D.3d 989 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
59 A.D.3d 391, 874 N.Y.S.2d 152, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-bertrand-v-bertrand-nyappdiv-2009.