READER, JUDY T. v. READER, ROBERT W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

READER, JUDY T. v. READER, ROBERT W.

91 A.D.3d 1332, 937 N.Y.2d 658

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 2012

DocketCA 11-01710

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 91 A.D.3d 1332 (READER, JUDY T. v. READER, ROBERT W.) 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

READER, JUDY T. v. READER, ROBERT W., 91 A.D.3d 1332, 937 N.Y.2d 658 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

It is hereby ordered that the case is held, the decision is *1333 reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Ontario County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: As limited by his brief, defendant appeals from those parts of a judgment of divorce determining that certain assets constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution and valuing those assets. Defendant contends, inter alia, that the Referee erred in determining that a purported bank account at Canandaigua National Bank (hereafter, bank account) constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution. The Referee concluded that the bank account was valued at $194,000, which was to be distributed equally between the parties. In making that determination, the Referee relied upon certain exhibits that were admitted in evidence at trial upon stipulation of the parties, but those exhibits were not included in the record on appeal. In addition, the Referee noted that there was a dispute regarding that bank account, but he failed to indicate the basis upon which he resolved that dispute. In the absence of the evidence upon which the Referee relied in making his determination and the reasoning used to resolve the dispute regarding the bank account, we are unable to review defendant’s contention. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination with respect to the content of the missing exhibits, after a reconstruction hearing if necessary (see generally Matter of Garner v Garner, 88 AD3d 708 [2011]; Matter of Wendy L.K. v Jeffrey S., 278 AD2d 785 [2000]), and for the Referee to state the reasoning for his determination that defendant possessed the bank account and for his valuation thereof. Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Gorski, JJ.

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

It is hereby ordered that the case is held, the decision is *1333 reserved and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Ontario County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: As limited by his brief, defendant appeals from those parts of a judgment of divorce determining that certain assets constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution and valuing those assets. Defendant contends, inter alia, that the Referee erred in determining that a purported bank account at Canandaigua National Bank (hereafter, bank account) constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution. The Referee concluded that the bank account was valued at $194,000, which was to be distributed equally between the parties. In making that determination, the Referee relied upon certain exhibits that were admitted in evidence at trial upon stipulation of the parties, but those exhibits were not included in the record on appeal. In addition, the Referee noted that there was a dispute regarding that bank account, but he failed to indicate the basis upon which he resolved that dispute. In the absence of the evidence upon which the Referee relied in making his determination and the reasoning used to resolve the dispute regarding the bank account, we are unable to review defendant’s contention. We therefore hold the case, reserve decision and remit the matter to Supreme Court for a determination with respect to the content of the missing exhibits, after a reconstruction hearing if necessary (see generally Matter of Garner v Garner, 88 AD3d 708 [2011]; Matter of Wendy L.K. v Jeffrey S., 278 AD2d 785 [2000]), and for the Referee to state the reasoning for his determination that defendant possessed the bank account and for his valuation thereof. Present — Smith, J.E, Fahey, Garni, Sconiers and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

91 A.D.3d 1332, 937 N.Y.2d 658, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reader-judy-t-v-reader-robert-w-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack