Saslow v. Saslow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Saslow v. Saslow

38 A.D.3d 876, 831 N.Y.S.2d 343

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 876 (Saslow v. Saslow) 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

Saslow v. Saslow, 38 A.D.3d 876, 831 N.Y.S.2d 343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered June 2, 2006, which denied his application for prejudgment interest on a distributive award.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying his application for prejudgment interest on a distributive award (see Miklos v Miklos, 9 AD3d 397 [2004]; Gold v Gold, 276 AD2d 587 [2000]; Lipsky v Lipsky, 276 AD2d 753, 754 [2000]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Krausman and Balkin, 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 defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, J.), entered June 2, 2006, which denied his application for prejudgment interest on a distributive award.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court providently exercised its discretion in denying his application for prejudgment interest on a distributive award (see Miklos v Miklos, 9 AD3d 397 [2004]; Gold v Gold, 276 AD2d 587 [2000]; Lipsky v Lipsky, 276 AD2d 753, 754 [2000]). Schmidt, J.E, Santucci, Krausman and Balkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 876, 831 N.Y.S.2d 343, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/saslow-v-saslow-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack