Spirt v. Spirt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Spirt v. Spirt

289 A.D.2d 392, 734 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12181

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 289 A.D.2d 392 (Spirt v. Spirt) 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

Spirt v. Spirt, 289 A.D.2d 392, 734 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated October 11, 2000, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered November 8, 2000, which, upon the decision, directed that the parties be reimbursed for their separate contributions toward the purchase of the marital residence from the proceeds of its sale and then share the remaining proceeds equally.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

Since the antenuptial agreement is clear and unambiguous, [393]*393the parties’ intent must be determined from within the four comers of the agreement (see, Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d 822). The Supreme Court correctly determined that, pursuant to the terms of the antenuptial agreement, the parties intended that the proceeds from the plaintiffs sale of her former separate residence were to remain her separate property, even though those proceeds were subsequently contributed toward the purchase of the parties’ marital residence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Adams 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 defendant appeals from (1) a decision of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated October 11, 2000, and (2) a judgment of the same court, entered November 8, 2000, which, upon the decision, directed that the parties be reimbursed for their separate contributions toward the purchase of the marital residence from the proceeds of its sale and then share the remaining proceeds equally.

Ordered that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision (see, Schicchi v Green Constr. Corp., 100 AD2d 509); and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

Since the antenuptial agreement is clear and unambiguous, [393]*393the parties’ intent must be determined from within the four comers of the agreement (see, Matter of Meccico v Meccico, 76 NY2d 822). The Supreme Court correctly determined that, pursuant to the terms of the antenuptial agreement, the parties intended that the proceeds from the plaintiffs sale of her former separate residence were to remain her separate property, even though those proceeds were subsequently contributed toward the purchase of the parties’ marital residence.

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Friedmann, Adams and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

289 A.D.2d 392, 734 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/spirt-v-spirt-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack