Mauthner v. Mauthner

128 A.D.3d 502, 9 N.Y.S.3d 247
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 14, 2015·No. 15124 302289/09·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Judgment of divorce, Supreme Court, New York County (Matthew F. Cooper, J.), entered January 24, 2013, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, distributing the E-Trade account and Fidelity retirement accounts based upon their values at the date of the commencement of the action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

In distributing the parties’ assets, Supreme Court properly determined that the E-Trade account and Fidelity retirement accounts should be valued as of the date of the commencement of this action (see Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4] [b]; McSparron v McSparron, 87 NY2d 275, 287-288 [1995]). While passive assets are generally valued close to the date of trial, there are no strict rules mandating the use of particular valuation dates, and the court’s determination is reasonable in the circumstances (see Greenwald v Greenwald, 164 AD2d 706, 713 [1st Dept 1991], lv denied 78 NY2d 855 [1991]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5]). Defendant’s income is higher than plaintiffs, she was awarded the entirety of her UBS brokerage *503 account of more than $1.6 million, and she shared in the money given to the parties by plaintiffs parents. Concur — Friedman, J.P., Saxe, Richter and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Mauthner v. Mauthner, 128 A.D.3d 502, 9 N.Y.S.3d 247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

128 A.D.3d 502 (Mauthner v. Mauthner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Halley v. Craven
2025 NY Slip Op 01572 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Dabo v. Sibblies
142 A.D.3d 459 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)