Napp v. Napp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Napp v. Napp

121 A.D.2d 703, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58688

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

DecidedJune 30, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 121 A.D.2d 703 (Napp v. Napp) 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

Napp v. Napp, 121 A.D.2d 703, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58688 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Collins, J.), dated March 8, 1985, which directed that her interest in the former marital dwelling be sold to the plaintiff husband as per a stipulation entered into between the parties, and the plaintiff husband cross-appeals from so much of the same order as failed to allow for any reduction for reasonable brokerage commissions in calculating the price to be paid to the defendant for her interest in the subject premises.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The agreement involved contains no requirement that the plaintiff quit the former marital premises before he may, as he does herein, seek to purchase the defendant’s interest in that premises. Additionally, with respect to the plaintiff’s cross appeal, we would point out that the sale of a home in the market place would not necessarily involve the services of a broker, as the plaintiff urges it would. Since the agreement involved does not provide for the inclusion of an allowance for brokerage commissions in calculating the sales price of the defendant’s interest in the former marital residence, Special Term correctly omitted this item from its calculations. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Kooper 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, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Collins, J.), dated March 8, 1985, which directed that her interest in the former marital dwelling be sold to the plaintiff husband as per a stipulation entered into between the parties, and the plaintiff husband cross-appeals from so much of the same order as failed to allow for any reduction for reasonable brokerage commissions in calculating the price to be paid to the defendant for her interest in the subject premises.

Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The agreement involved contains no requirement that the plaintiff quit the former marital premises before he may, as he does herein, seek to purchase the defendant’s interest in that premises. Additionally, with respect to the plaintiff’s cross appeal, we would point out that the sale of a home in the market place would not necessarily involve the services of a broker, as the plaintiff urges it would. Since the agreement involved does not provide for the inclusion of an allowance for brokerage commissions in calculating the sales price of the defendant’s interest in the former marital residence, Special Term correctly omitted this item from its calculations. Lazer, J. P., Bracken, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

121 A.D.2d 703, 503 N.Y.S.2d 1014, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 58688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/napp-v-napp-nyappdiv-1986.