Kalfus v. Kalfus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kalfus v. Kalfus

243 A.D.2d 324, 664 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9879

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 324 (Kalfus v. Kalfus) 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

Kalfus v. Kalfus, 243 A.D.2d 324, 664 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9879 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered June 5, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm, and denied defendant’s cross motion to disaffirm, the Special Referee’s report on the division of [325]*325marital property and the parties’ child support obligations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter is remitted for a new decision that takes into consideration the transcript of the hearing held before the Special Referee.

The matter must be remitted for a new decision since it appears from plaintiffs affidavit in support of her motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report that minutes of the hearing were taken, submission of the transcript thereof was not waived and the court rendered its decision without having before it “ ‘the testimony in some form or agreement by the parties as to its substance sufficient to permit the court to pass upon a challenge made to the sufficiency of the evidence’ ” (Matter of Shulman v Elco Constr. Corp., 12 AD2d 460, quoting Aron v Aron, 280 NY 328, 330). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered June 5, 1996, which granted plaintiff’s motion to confirm, and denied defendant’s cross motion to disaffirm, the Special Referee’s report on the division of [325]*325marital property and the parties’ child support obligations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and the matter is remitted for a new decision that takes into consideration the transcript of the hearing held before the Special Referee.

The matter must be remitted for a new decision since it appears from plaintiffs affidavit in support of her motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report that minutes of the hearing were taken, submission of the transcript thereof was not waived and the court rendered its decision without having before it “ ‘the testimony in some form or agreement by the parties as to its substance sufficient to permit the court to pass upon a challenge made to the sufficiency of the evidence’ ” (Matter of Shulman v Elco Constr. Corp., 12 AD2d 460, quoting Aron v Aron, 280 NY 328, 330). Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 324, 664 N.Y.S.2d 526, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9879, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kalfus-v-kalfus-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack