Sebag v. Sebag

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sebag v. Sebag

294 A.D.2d 560, 743 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5611

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

DecidedMay 28, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by15 cases

This text of 294 A.D.2d 560 (Sebag v. Sebag) 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

Sebag v. Sebag, 294 A.D.2d 560, 743 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5611 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered May 22, 2000, as awarded the plaintiff 57.4% of the interest in the marital residence and 100% of the interest in the parties’ cooperative apartment.

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

“Equitable distribution presents matters of fact to be resolved by the trial court, and its distribution of the parties’ marital property should not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in so doing” (Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515; see Petrie v Petrie, 124 AD2d 449, 450; Foxx v Foxx, 114 AD2d 605, 606). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in distributing the marital property in this case (see Oster v Goldberg, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and McGinity, 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, as limited by his brief, from so much of a resettled judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), entered May 22, 2000, as awarded the plaintiff 57.4% of the interest in the marital residence and 100% of the interest in the parties’ cooperative apartment.

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

“Equitable distribution presents matters of fact to be resolved by the trial court, and its distribution of the parties’ marital property should not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in so doing” (Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515; see Petrie v Petrie, 124 AD2d 449, 450; Foxx v Foxx, 114 AD2d 605, 606). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in distributing the marital property in this case (see Oster v Goldberg, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J.P., Altman, S. Miller and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

294 A.D.2d 560, 743 N.Y.S.2d 276, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5611, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sebag-v-sebag-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack