Tung Auyeung v. Yinyin Mui

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tung Auyeung v. Yinyin Mui

82 A.D.3d 477, 918 N.Y.2d 412

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

DecidedMarch 8, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 82 A.D.3d 477 (Tung Auyeung v. Yinyin Mui) 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

Tung Auyeung v. Yinyin Mui, 82 A.D.3d 477, 918 N.Y.2d 412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

The wife failed to rebut the presumption that all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage is marital property (see DeJesus v DeJesus, 90 NY2d 643, 648 [1997]; see also Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [7]). As a result, the referee properly found that the parties should equally divide the proceeds of the house sale (see Smith v Smith, 8 AD3d 728 [2004]; see also McManus v McManus, 298 AD2d 189 [2002]; [478]*478Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 165-166 [2010], affg 65 AD3d 297 [2009]).

We find no basis to disturb the referee’s credibility determinations, and thus, find no basis to disturb the referee’s finding on fault (see Hale v Hale, 16 AD3d 231, 233 [2005]).

We have considered the wife’s remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved or without merit. Concur— Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

The wife failed to rebut the presumption that all property acquired by either spouse during the marriage is marital property (see DeJesus v DeJesus, 90 NY2d 643, 648 [1997]; see also Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [d] [7]). As a result, the referee properly found that the parties should equally divide the proceeds of the house sale (see Smith v Smith, 8 AD3d 728 [2004]; see also McManus v McManus, 298 AD2d 189 [2002]; [478]*478Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 165-166 [2010], affg 65 AD3d 297 [2009]).

We find no basis to disturb the referee’s credibility determinations, and thus, find no basis to disturb the referee’s finding on fault (see Hale v Hale, 16 AD3d 231, 233 [2005]).

We have considered the wife’s remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved or without merit. Concur— Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

82 A.D.3d 477, 918 N.Y.2d 412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tung-auyeung-v-yinyin-mui-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack