Schultz v. Schultz
This text of 309 A.D.2d 849 (Schultz v. Schultz) 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.
Opinion
In an action [850]*850for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Oliver, J.), entered July 3, 2002, which, inter alia, equitably distributed the marital property and awarded her maintenance only for a period of 10 years or until the defendant retires, and the defendant cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of the same judgment, which, inter alia, equitably distributed the marital property and awarded the plaintiff maintenance for a period of 10 years or until the defendant retires.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We find no reason to disturb the trial court’s determination as to equitable distribution of the marital property (see Sebag v Sebag, 294 AD2d 560 [2002]; Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515 [1996]). Similarly, the amount and duration of maintenance are matters committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and the trial court providently exercised its discretion with respect thereto (see Chalif v Chalif, 298 AD2d 348 [2002]; Damato v Damato, 215 AD2d 348 [1995]).
The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Altman, J.P., H. Miller, Adams and Townes, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
309 A.D.2d 849, 766 N.Y.S.2d 76, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schultz-v-schultz-nyappdiv-2003.