Sinha v. Sinha

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sinha v. Sinha

38 A.D.3d 475, 835 N.Y.S.2d 15

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

DecidedMarch 29, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 38 A.D.3d 475 (Sinha v. Sinha) 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

Sinha v. Sinha, 38 A.D.3d 475, 835 N.Y.S.2d 15 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sue Ann Hoahng, Special Referee), as amended after remand and hearing, and entered July 21, 2006, reducing plaintiff’s distributive award from $1 million to $771,423, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The original 2005 judgment in this divorce action was modified and remanded for recalculation of the dissipation of non-hedge-fund marital assets by defendant with respect to earnings after commencement of this action, which do not constitute marital property; the payments for basic living expenses, court-appointed accountant and divorce lawyers; and decline in the stock market (17 AD3d 131 [2005]). All other aspects of the original judgment were affirmed. The Referee followed the direc[476]*476tion of the remand order in making this recalculation, and the amended award was proper, equitable and within the discretion of the trial court (see Coburn v Coburn, 300 AD2d 212 [2002]; Goldberg v Goldberg, 172 AD2d 316 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1124 [1991]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Sue Ann Hoahng, Special Referee), as amended after remand and hearing, and entered July 21, 2006, reducing plaintiff’s distributive award from $1 million to $771,423, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The original 2005 judgment in this divorce action was modified and remanded for recalculation of the dissipation of non-hedge-fund marital assets by defendant with respect to earnings after commencement of this action, which do not constitute marital property; the payments for basic living expenses, court-appointed accountant and divorce lawyers; and decline in the stock market (17 AD3d 131 [2005]). All other aspects of the original judgment were affirmed. The Referee followed the direc[476]*476tion of the remand order in making this recalculation, and the amended award was proper, equitable and within the discretion of the trial court (see Coburn v Coburn, 300 AD2d 212 [2002]; Goldberg v Goldberg, 172 AD2d 316 [1991], lv dismissed 78 NY2d 1124 [1991]).

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Buckley, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 475, 835 N.Y.S.2d 15, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sinha-v-sinha-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack