Pooler v. Pooler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pooler v. Pooler

2017 NY Slip Op 7053, 154 A.D.3d 1305, 61 N.Y.S.3d 801

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

DecidedOctober 6, 2017

Docket1055 CA 16-02206

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7053 (Pooler v. Pooler) 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

Pooler v. Pooler, 2017 NY Slip Op 7053, 154 A.D.3d 1305, 61 N.Y.S.3d 801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Daniel P. Majchrzak, Jr., Ref.), entered May 19, 2016. The order, inter alia, determined that the debt owed on the Discover Card account is marital debt.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by determining that the debt owed on the Discover Card account is the separate debt of plaintiff and is not marital debt, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this postdivorce proceeding, defendant husband appeals from an order that, inter alia, determined that the debt owed on a Discover Card account is marital debt and equitably distributed that debt between the parties. “[T]he initial determination of whether a particular asset is marital or separate property is a question of law, subject to plenary review on appeal” (Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 161 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, Supreme Court erroneously classified the Discover Card account as marital debt subject to equitable distribution inasmuch as plaintiff wife asserted in her net worth statement that the Discover Card debt belonged to her alone (see generally Koch v Koch, 134 AD2d 574, 574 [1987]; Jolis v Jolis, 98 AD2d 692, 692-693 [1983]). We therefore modify the order accordingly. We reject defendant’s remaining contentions for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Present — Whalen, P.J., Centra, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Winslow, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County (Daniel P. Majchrzak, Jr., Ref.), entered May 19, 2016. The order, inter alia, determined that the debt owed on the Discover Card account is marital debt.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by determining that the debt owed on the Discover Card account is the separate debt of plaintiff and is not marital debt, and as modified the order is affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this postdivorce proceeding, defendant husband appeals from an order that, inter alia, determined that the debt owed on a Discover Card account is marital debt and equitably distributed that debt between the parties. “[T]he initial determination of whether a particular asset is marital or separate property is a question of law, subject to plenary review on appeal” (Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 161 [2010] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, Supreme Court erroneously classified the Discover Card account as marital debt subject to equitable distribution inasmuch as plaintiff wife asserted in her net worth statement that the Discover Card debt belonged to her alone (see generally Koch v Koch, 134 AD2d 574, 574 [1987]; Jolis v Jolis, 98 AD2d 692, 692-693 [1983]). We therefore modify the order accordingly. We reject defendant’s remaining contentions for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court.

Present — Whalen, P.J., Centra, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Winslow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7053, 154 A.D.3d 1305, 61 N.Y.S.3d 801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pooler-v-pooler-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack