Mastrocola v. Mastrocola

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mastrocola v. Mastrocola

268 A.D.2d 341, 700 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 481

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 268 A.D.2d 341 (Mastrocola v. Mastrocola) 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

Mastrocola v. Mastrocola, 268 A.D.2d 341, 700 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Gische, J.), entered on or about November 27, 1998, dissolving the marriage, confirming a Referee’s report, and directing sale of the parties’ property and distribution of the proceeds and permanent maintenance to be paid to plaintiff in the amount of $300 per month, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s view of the evidence affords no basis to disturb Supreme Court’s discretionary determinations (see, Kamen v Kamen, 163 AD2d 58) as to maintenance and distribution of the two marital real properties. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith Gische, J.), entered on or about November 27, 1998, dissolving the marriage, confirming a Referee’s report, and directing sale of the parties’ property and distribution of the proceeds and permanent maintenance to be paid to plaintiff in the amount of $300 per month, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s view of the evidence affords no basis to disturb Supreme Court’s discretionary determinations (see, Kamen v Kamen, 163 AD2d 58) as to maintenance and distribution of the two marital real properties. We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them unavailing. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Rubin, Andrias and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 341, 700 N.Y.S.2d 824, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mastrocola-v-mastrocola-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack