Miceli v. Miceli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Miceli v. Miceli

248 A.D.2d 446, 668 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2262

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 248 A.D.2d 446 (Miceli v. Miceli) 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

Miceli v. Miceli, 248 A.D.2d 446, 668 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff former [447]*447husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), entered March 6, 1996, as valued his chiropractic license and granted the defendant former wife a distributive award of 25% of the value of that license. The former husband’s notice of appeal from an order dated August 11, 1995, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 M).

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

The trial court correctly valued the former husband’s chiropractic license (see, McSparron v McSparron, 87 NY2d 275; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576). The trial court’s decision to award the former wife 25% of the value of this license is supported by the record (see, Vainchenker v Vainchenker, 242 AD2d 620; Morrongiello v Paulsen, 195 AD2d 594; Bugliari v Bugliari, 169 AD2d 697).

Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff former [447]*447husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), entered March 6, 1996, as valued his chiropractic license and granted the defendant former wife a distributive award of 25% of the value of that license. The former husband’s notice of appeal from an order dated August 11, 1995, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 M).

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

The trial court correctly valued the former husband’s chiropractic license (see, McSparron v McSparron, 87 NY2d 275; O’Brien v O’Brien, 66 NY2d 576). The trial court’s decision to award the former wife 25% of the value of this license is supported by the record (see, Vainchenker v Vainchenker, 242 AD2d 620; Morrongiello v Paulsen, 195 AD2d 594; Bugliari v Bugliari, 169 AD2d 697).

Pizzuto, J. P., Santucci, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 446, 668 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/miceli-v-miceli-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack