Scopelliti v. Scopelliti
This text of 90 A.D.3d 1016 (Scopelliti v. Scopelliti) 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
The plaintiff failed to meet his burden of proving that the marital residence was his separate property (see Frey v Frey, 68 AD3d 1052, 1053 [2009]; Embury v Embury, 49 AD3d 802, 804 [2008]). Moreover, the Supreme Court’s imputation of income to the plaintiff was proper (see Duffy v Duffy, 84 AD3d 1151, 1152 [2011]; Wesche v Wesche, 77 AD3d 921, 923 [2010]; Fabrikant v Fabrikant, 62 AD3d 585, 586 [2009]).
We further find that, under the circumstances of this case, the award of counsel fees to the defendant was a provident exercise of discretion (see Levy v Levy, 289 AD2d 379 [2001]; Cooper v Cooper, 32 AD3d 376, 377 [2006]; see also Frankel v Frankel, 2 NY3d 601 [2004]).
The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit, or [1017]*1017not properly before this Court. Skelos, J.E, Hall, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
90 A.D.3d 1016, 934 N.Y.2d 849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/scopelliti-v-scopelliti-nyappdiv-2011.