Valle v. Valle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Valle v. Valle

251 A.D.2d 570, 673 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7534

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

DecidedJune 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 570 (Valle v. Valle) 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

Valle v. Valle, 251 A.D.2d 570, 673 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7534 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated July 16, 1997, which, inter alia, determined that certain bank accounts were not marital property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The bank accounts in controversy were established by the [571]*571defendant for the parties’ three children. The funds which were deposited in each account originated as gifts from third parties. Since money given by a third party to a child and held in an account in the name of one of the parents for the benefit of the child is not marital property (see, Knox v Knox, 82 AD2d 824), the court’s determination was proper.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and McGinity, 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 from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Costello, J.), dated July 16, 1997, which, inter alia, determined that certain bank accounts were not marital property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The bank accounts in controversy were established by the [571]*571defendant for the parties’ three children. The funds which were deposited in each account originated as gifts from third parties. Since money given by a third party to a child and held in an account in the name of one of the parents for the benefit of the child is not marital property (see, Knox v Knox, 82 AD2d 824), the court’s determination was proper.

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 570, 673 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7534, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/valle-v-valle-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack