Murphy v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Murphy v. Murphy

120 A.D.2d 655, 502 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56753

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

DecidedMay 19, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.2d 655 (Murphy v. Murphy) 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

Murphy v. Murphy, 120 A.D.2d 655, 502 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56753 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief (action No. 1) and in an action to impose a constructive trust (action No. 2), James Anthony Murphy, the defendant in action No. 1 and the plaintiff in action No. 2, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated June 21, 1985, as denied his motion to consolidate the two actions.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that the actions shall be tried jointly.

Since a victory by appellant in his action to impose a constructive trust would create additional marital property subject to equitable distribution in the divorce action, we find, on the record before us, that a joint trial of these actions would be proper and desirable. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief (action No. 1) and in an action to impose a constructive trust (action No. 2), James Anthony Murphy, the defendant in action No. 1 and the plaintiff in action No. 2, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated June 21, 1985, as denied his motion to consolidate the two actions.

Order reversed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements, and motion granted to the extent that the actions shall be tried jointly.

Since a victory by appellant in his action to impose a constructive trust would create additional marital property subject to equitable distribution in the divorce action, we find, on the record before us, that a joint trial of these actions would be proper and desirable. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 655, 502 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56753, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/murphy-v-murphy-nyappdiv-1986.