Krutyansky v. Krutyansky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Krutyansky v. Krutyansky

298 A.D.2d 502, 748 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9926

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 298 A.D.2d 502 (Krutyansky v. Krutyansky) 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

Krutyansky v. Krutyansky, 298 A.D.2d 502, 748 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9926 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 13, 2000, the'defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated August 15, 2001, which denied his motion, inter alia, to transfer marital property to the plaintiff in satisfaction of a distributive award and for a downward modification of maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate his inability to pay the distributive award pursuant to a judgment of divorce of the same court dated June 13, 2000, is supported by the record.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 13, 2000, the'defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated August 15, 2001, which denied his motion, inter alia, to transfer marital property to the plaintiff in satisfaction of a distributive award and for a downward modification of maintenance.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The finding that the defendant failed to demonstrate his inability to pay the distributive award pursuant to a judgment of divorce of the same court dated June 13, 2000, is supported by the record.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Feuerstein, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 502, 748 N.Y.S.2d 510, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9926, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/krutyansky-v-krutyansky-nyappdiv-2002.