Samaritano v. Samaritano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Samaritano v. Samaritano

172 A.D.2d 817, 570 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348

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

DecidedApril 29, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 817 (Samaritano v. Samaritano) 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

Samaritano v. Samaritano, 172 A.D.2d 817, 570 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated October 12, 1989, as, upon reargument, held that proceeds which the defendant husband might receive from a pending action to recover damages for personal injury were not marital property and could not be required to be held in escrow pending a future award of support and maintenance.

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

Any moneys which the husband might receive in settlement of his pending action to recover damages for personal injury constitute separate property (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2]; Richmond v Richmond, 144 AD2d 549; Rossi v Rossi, 137 AD2d 590). As such, the court properly declined to require that such funds be placed in escrow pending resolution of this matrimonial action. We further note that, as there is no order in effect mandating temporary maintenance or child support, to require the husband to hold these future sums in escrow would be improper. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, 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 wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Yachnin, J.), dated October 12, 1989, as, upon reargument, held that proceeds which the defendant husband might receive from a pending action to recover damages for personal injury were not marital property and could not be required to be held in escrow pending a future award of support and maintenance.

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

Any moneys which the husband might receive in settlement of his pending action to recover damages for personal injury constitute separate property (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2]; Richmond v Richmond, 144 AD2d 549; Rossi v Rossi, 137 AD2d 590). As such, the court properly declined to require that such funds be placed in escrow pending resolution of this matrimonial action. We further note that, as there is no order in effect mandating temporary maintenance or child support, to require the husband to hold these future sums in escrow would be improper. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 817, 570 N.Y.S.2d 984, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samaritano-v-samaritano-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack