Spelber v. Spelber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spelber v. Spelber

10 A.D.3d 358, 780 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10139

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

DecidedAugust 2, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 358 (Spelber v. Spelber) 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

Spelber v. Spelber, 10 A.D.3d 358, 780 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (La Marca, J), dated June 25, 2003, as directed that the former marital premises be appraised as of March 1, 2002, and that such appraisal be the basis for the computation of the amount to be paid by the defendant for the purchase of the plaintiffs interest in the premises.

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

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing that the former marital residence be appraised as of March 1, 2002.

However, we do not agree with the wife’s argument that the husband’s appeal was frivolous warranting the imposition of sanctions (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; Belsky v Belsky, 175 AD2d 900 [1991]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Altman and Cozier, 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 plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (La Marca, J), dated June 25, 2003, as directed that the former marital premises be appraised as of March 1, 2002, and that such appraisal be the basis for the computation of the amount to be paid by the defendant for the purchase of the plaintiffs interest in the premises.

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

Under the particular circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing that the former marital residence be appraised as of March 1, 2002.

However, we do not agree with the wife’s argument that the husband’s appeal was frivolous warranting the imposition of sanctions (see 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c]; Belsky v Belsky, 175 AD2d 900 [1991]). Prudenti, P.J., Ritter, Altman and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 358, 780 N.Y.S.2d 296, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spelber-v-spelber-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack