Sigurjonsson v. Sigurjonsson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sigurjonsson v. Sigurjonsson

302 A.D.2d 512, 755 N.Y.S.2d 259

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

DecidedFebruary 18, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 512 (Sigurjonsson v. Sigurjonsson) 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

Sigurjonsson v. Sigurjonsson, 302 A.D.2d 512, 755 N.Y.S.2d 259 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), dated January 31, 2002, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded him a separate property credit in the sum of only $20,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the marital residence.

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

At trial, the defendant testified that he spent certain specified amounts from his separate property to purchase the subject real property and construct a house thereon. Most of his claims were unsubstantiated. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly limited his credit to the sum of $20,000. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Rivera, 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 husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), dated January 31, 2002, as, after a nonjury trial, awarded him a separate property credit in the sum of only $20,000 from the net proceeds of the sale of the marital residence.

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

At trial, the defendant testified that he spent certain specified amounts from his separate property to purchase the subject real property and construct a house thereon. Most of his claims were unsubstantiated. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court properly limited his credit to the sum of $20,000. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 512, 755 N.Y.S.2d 259, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sigurjonsson-v-sigurjonsson-nyappdiv-2003.