Ockert v. Ockert

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ockert v. Ockert

279 A.D.2d 334, 718 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 455

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 279 A.D.2d 334 (Ockert v. Ockert) 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

Ockert v. Ockert, 279 A.D.2d 334, 718 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 455 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered December 2, 1999, which, inter alia, dissolved the parties’ marriage by reason of the constructive abandonment of plaintiff by defendant, fixed plaintiff’s child support obligation, and adjudged the remaining proceeds from plaintiff’s personal injury action to be plaintiff’s separate property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant fails to establish that the IAS Court erred in determining which assets were subject to equitable distribution. Moreover, the court correctly calculated plaintiff’s child support obligation based on the income received by him from his business. There is no basis to conclude that plaintiff improperly limited his income by manipulating his business’s expenses. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Lobis, J.), entered December 2, 1999, which, inter alia, dissolved the parties’ marriage by reason of the constructive abandonment of plaintiff by defendant, fixed plaintiff’s child support obligation, and adjudged the remaining proceeds from plaintiff’s personal injury action to be plaintiff’s separate property, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant fails to establish that the IAS Court erred in determining which assets were subject to equitable distribution. Moreover, the court correctly calculated plaintiff’s child support obligation based on the income received by him from his business. There is no basis to conclude that plaintiff improperly limited his income by manipulating his business’s expenses. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Wallach and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

279 A.D.2d 334, 718 N.Y.S.2d 840, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 455, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ockert-v-ockert-nyappdiv-2001.