Langdon v. Langdon

138 A.D.2d 358, 525 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 7, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 138 A.D.2d 358 (Langdon v. Langdon) 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
Langdon v. Langdon, 138 A.D.2d 358, 525 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Ain, J.), entered August 28, 1985, as awarded the plaintiff wife the marital residence.

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

The trial court properly denied equitable distributive relief to the defendant husband under the clean hands doctrine, since Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) (13) requires the court to do equity by considering "any other factor which the court shall expressly find to be just and proper” (cf., Scheinkman, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C236B:14, at 236). That doctrine serves as a disability to the defendant husband because he admitted that in 1977 he had transferred the marital residence into the wife’s sole ownership in order to avoid his creditors’ claims to that residence. Furthermore, he avoided filing for bankruptcy until 1979 so that his creditors could not seek to have the transfer set aside. Clearly, his conduct with respect to the marital residence was immoral and wrongful and the trial court properly refused to permit the defendant husband to share in this asset as a matter of public policy in order to protect the integrity of the court (see, Farino v Farino, 88 AD2d 902).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find them to be equally without merit. Bracken, J. P., Weinstein, Rubin and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Toobian v. Golzad
2021 NY Slip Op 02186 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
G.M. v. M.M.
50 Misc. 3d 956 (New York Supreme Court, 2015)
Festinger v. Edrich
32 A.D.3d 412 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
Bernstein v. Bernstein
18 A.D.3d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Festinger v. Edrich
8 Misc. 3d 700 (New York Supreme Court, 2005)
David v. Pillai
303 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Moo Wei Wong v. Wong
293 A.D.2d 387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re the Estate of Proto
245 A.D.2d 520 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Bullaro v. Bullaro
231 A.D.2d 666 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Jossel v. Meyers
212 A.D.2d 55 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Schwartz v. Schwartz
153 Misc. 2d 789 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Lenczycki v. Lenczycki
152 A.D.2d 621 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
138 A.D.2d 358, 525 N.Y.S.2d 649, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2087, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/langdon-v-langdon-nyappdiv-1988.