Parker v. Parker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Parker v. Parker

240 A.D.2d 554, 659 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6907

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

DecidedJune 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 554 (Parker v. Parker) 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

Parker v. Parker, 240 A.D.2d 554, 659 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6907 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.H.O.), dated July 1, 1996, as (1) awarded the wife spousal support in the amount of $1,000 per month for a period of eight years, (2) awarded the wife $22,500 in counsel [555]*555fees, (3) dismissed his claim for a credit against the parties’ marital assets to reflect a $20,000 gift from his grandfather and a $11,000 inheritance from his grandfather’s sister, and (4) dismissed his claim for a credit against the parties’ marital assets for the value of the wife’s real estate license.

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

Contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court, the parties’ stipulation of partial settlement dated September 22, 1995, did not bar the husband’s claim for a credit against the parties’ marital assets to reflect a $20,000 gift from his grandfather and an $11,000 inheritance from his grandfather’s sister. Exhibit A to the stipulation clearly provides that these issues, if not resolved by the parties prior to trial, shall be presented to the Judicial Hearing Officer for his determination. However, in the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the husband’s claims for his alleged separate property contributions, which were fully litigated, were not established by clear and convincing evidence (see, Stavans v Stavans, 207 AD2d 392; Kirshenbaum v Kirshenbaum, 203 AD2d 534; Pullman v Pullman, 176 AD2d 113; Lischynsky v Lischynsky, 120 AD2d 824).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, 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 husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.H.O.), dated July 1, 1996, as (1) awarded the wife spousal support in the amount of $1,000 per month for a period of eight years, (2) awarded the wife $22,500 in counsel [555]*555fees, (3) dismissed his claim for a credit against the parties’ marital assets to reflect a $20,000 gift from his grandfather and a $11,000 inheritance from his grandfather’s sister, and (4) dismissed his claim for a credit against the parties’ marital assets for the value of the wife’s real estate license.

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

Contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court, the parties’ stipulation of partial settlement dated September 22, 1995, did not bar the husband’s claim for a credit against the parties’ marital assets to reflect a $20,000 gift from his grandfather and an $11,000 inheritance from his grandfather’s sister. Exhibit A to the stipulation clearly provides that these issues, if not resolved by the parties prior to trial, shall be presented to the Judicial Hearing Officer for his determination. However, in the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the husband’s claims for his alleged separate property contributions, which were fully litigated, were not established by clear and convincing evidence (see, Stavans v Stavans, 207 AD2d 392; Kirshenbaum v Kirshenbaum, 203 AD2d 534; Pullman v Pullman, 176 AD2d 113; Lischynsky v Lischynsky, 120 AD2d 824).

The husband’s remaining contentions are without merit. Miller, J. P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 554, 659 N.Y.S.2d 790, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6907, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/parker-v-parker-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack