Tuccillo v. Tuccillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tuccillo v. Tuccillo

8 A.D.3d 660, 778 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9161

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

DecidedJune 28, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 660 (Tuccillo v. Tuccillo) 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

Tuccillo v. Tuccillo, 8 A.D.3d 660, 778 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9161 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[661]*661In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), entered August 5, 2003, as denied his cross motion to establish December 28, 1999, as the classification and valuation date of marital property for the purpose of equitable distribution.

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

Trial courts have the discretion to select valuation dates “which are appropriate and fair under the particular facts and circumstances presented” (Cohn v Cohn, 155 AD2d 412, 413 [1989]). Under the circumstances of this case, and in light of our decision in Tuccillo v Tuccillo, 8 AD3d 659 [2004] [decided herewith], the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s cross motion to establish December 28, 1999, the commencement date of the parties’ prior action for divorce which was previously dismissed, as the classification and valuation date of marital property for the purpose of equitable distribution, instead of the commencement date of this action (see Lamba v Lamba, 308 AD2d 434 [2003]; Martinucci v Marfinucci, 288 AD2d 444 [2001]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4] [b]). Goldstein, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur. [See 2003 NY Slip Op 5115(U).]

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

[661]*661In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Falanga, J.), entered August 5, 2003, as denied his cross motion to establish December 28, 1999, as the classification and valuation date of marital property for the purpose of equitable distribution.

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

Trial courts have the discretion to select valuation dates “which are appropriate and fair under the particular facts and circumstances presented” (Cohn v Cohn, 155 AD2d 412, 413 [1989]). Under the circumstances of this case, and in light of our decision in Tuccillo v Tuccillo, 8 AD3d 659 [2004] [decided herewith], the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s cross motion to establish December 28, 1999, the commencement date of the parties’ prior action for divorce which was previously dismissed, as the classification and valuation date of marital property for the purpose of equitable distribution, instead of the commencement date of this action (see Lamba v Lamba, 308 AD2d 434 [2003]; Martinucci v Marfinucci, 288 AD2d 444 [2001]; Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [4] [b]). Goldstein, J.P., Luciano, Mastro and Lifson, JJ., concur. [See 2003 NY Slip Op 5115(U).]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 660, 778 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9161, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tuccillo-v-tuccillo-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack