Racz v. Racz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Racz v. Racz

11 A.D.3d 344, 783 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 344 (Racz v. Racz) 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

Racz v. Racz, 11 A.D.3d 344, 783 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2003, which, in a pre-equitable distribution action, denied defendant’s motion for elimination or downward modification of his alimony obligation, and for attorneys’ fees, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant fails to make the requisite particularized showing of his present financial circumstances (see 194 AD2d 401, 401-402 [1993]; 203 AD2d 114 [1994]). For example, while defendant, a stockbroker, claims that his substantial recent sales of stock owned by his present wife resulted in losses, he fails to [345]*345submit documentary evidence of his wife’s ownership or show the origin of the money used to purchase the stock. As another example, defendant adduces no evidence of the value of the Southampton house that he transferred to his present wife, and, while claiming that it was virtually destroyed by a pipe burst, there is no proof of an insurance claim or estimate of the cost of repairs. The award of attorneys’ fees was a proper exercise of discretion under Domestic Relations Law § 237 (b) (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan B. Lobis, J.), entered on or about November 19, 2003, which, in a pre-equitable distribution action, denied defendant’s motion for elimination or downward modification of his alimony obligation, and for attorneys’ fees, and granted plaintiffs cross motion for attorneys’ fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant fails to make the requisite particularized showing of his present financial circumstances (see 194 AD2d 401, 401-402 [1993]; 203 AD2d 114 [1994]). For example, while defendant, a stockbroker, claims that his substantial recent sales of stock owned by his present wife resulted in losses, he fails to [345]*345submit documentary evidence of his wife’s ownership or show the origin of the money used to purchase the stock. As another example, defendant adduces no evidence of the value of the Southampton house that he transferred to his present wife, and, while claiming that it was virtually destroyed by a pipe burst, there is no proof of an insurance claim or estimate of the cost of repairs. The award of attorneys’ fees was a proper exercise of discretion under Domestic Relations Law § 237 (b) (see DeCabrera v Cabrera-Rosete, 70 NY2d 879, 881 [1987]). Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Sullivan, Ellerin and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 344, 783 N.Y.S.2d 542, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12165, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/racz-v-racz-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack