Leichtner v. Leichtner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leichtner v. Leichtner

18 A.D.3d 446, 794 N.Y.S.2d 440

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 2, 2005·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

[447]*447In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered October 13, 1993, which, inter alia, failed to equitably distribute a portion of the plaintiffs pension to her as marital property.

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

Although a pension is normally subject to equitable distribution, the defendant failed to request that the Supreme Court award her a portion of the plaintiffs pension, and no evidence was offered with regard to the plaintiffs pension. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly declined to distribute a portion of the plaintiffs pension to the defendant (see LeVigne v LeVigne, 220 AD2d 561, 562 [1995]; see also Cleary v Cleary, 171 AD2d 1076 [1991]; Del Gado v Del Gado, 129 AD2d 426 [1987]; Michalek v Michalek, 114 AD2d 655 [1985]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ, concur.

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

[447]*447In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCabe, J.), entered October 13, 1993, which, inter alia, failed to equitably distribute a portion of the plaintiffs pension to her as marital property.

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

Although a pension is normally subject to equitable distribution, the defendant failed to request that the Supreme Court award her a portion of the plaintiffs pension, and no evidence was offered with regard to the plaintiffs pension. Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court properly declined to distribute a portion of the plaintiffs pension to the defendant (see LeVigne v LeVigne, 220 AD2d 561, 562 [1995]; see also Cleary v Cleary, 171 AD2d 1076 [1991]; Del Gado v Del Gado, 129 AD2d 426 [1987]; Michalek v Michalek, 114 AD2d 655 [1985]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Florio, J.P., Adams, Luciano and Skelos, JJ, concur.

Leichtner v. Leichtner, 18 A.D.3d 446, 794 N.Y.S.2d 440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

18 A.D.3d 446 (Leichtner v. Leichtner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related