Rizzuto v. Rizzuto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rizzuto v. Rizzuto

250 A.D.2d 829, 673 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6004

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

DecidedMay 26, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 250 A.D.2d 829 (Rizzuto v. Rizzuto) 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

Rizzuto v. Rizzuto, 250 A.D.2d 829, 673 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6004 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from stated portions of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bellantoni, J.), dated April 29,1997, which, inter alia, awarded [830]*830the defendant wife 50% of the post-separation appreciation in the value of the marital assets.

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

According to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (c) “Marital property shall be distributed equitably between the parties, considering the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties”. However, it is axiomatic that equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution (see, Greenwald v Greenwald, 164 AD2d 706). Rather, courts must use flexibility “ ‘to mold an appropriate decree because what is fair and just in one circumstance may not be so in another’ ” (Greenwald v Greenwald, supra, at 713; Rodgers v Rodgers, 98 AD2d 386, 391). In the case at bar, the parties were married for 31 years, and during their separation the defendant took care of the maintenance of the home. Thus, it was not an improvident exercise of the trial court’s discretion to award to the defendant 50% of the post-separation appreciation in the value of the marital assets.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, 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 plaintiff husband appeals from stated portions of an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Bellantoni, J.), dated April 29,1997, which, inter alia, awarded [830]*830the defendant wife 50% of the post-separation appreciation in the value of the marital assets.

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

According to Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (c) “Marital property shall be distributed equitably between the parties, considering the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties”. However, it is axiomatic that equitable distribution does not necessarily mean equal distribution (see, Greenwald v Greenwald, 164 AD2d 706). Rather, courts must use flexibility “ ‘to mold an appropriate decree because what is fair and just in one circumstance may not be so in another’ ” (Greenwald v Greenwald, supra, at 713; Rodgers v Rodgers, 98 AD2d 386, 391). In the case at bar, the parties were married for 31 years, and during their separation the defendant took care of the maintenance of the home. Thus, it was not an improvident exercise of the trial court’s discretion to award to the defendant 50% of the post-separation appreciation in the value of the marital assets.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Friedmann, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

250 A.D.2d 829, 673 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6004, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rizzuto-v-rizzuto-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack