Stovall v. Stovall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stovall v. Stovall

270 A.D.2d 4, 703 N.Y.S.2d 721, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2236

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 270 A.D.2d 4 (Stovall v. Stovall) 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

Stovall v. Stovall, 270 A.D.2d 4, 703 N.Y.S.2d 721, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2236 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about April 22, 1999, which denied defendant husband’s motion to modify a divorce judgment insofar as it awarded plaintiff wife a share of his pension, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s pension was not considered in determining the equitable distribution award lacks support in the record, which shows that plaintiff’s pension was considered but disregarded as too small to have any effect on the distribution. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about April 22, 1999, which denied defendant husband’s motion to modify a divorce judgment insofar as it awarded plaintiff wife a share of his pension, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s argument that plaintiff’s pension was not considered in determining the equitable distribution award lacks support in the record, which shows that plaintiff’s pension was considered but disregarded as too small to have any effect on the distribution. We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Rosenberger, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

270 A.D.2d 4, 703 N.Y.S.2d 721, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2236, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stovall-v-stovall-nyappdiv-2000.