Volponi-Hotton v. Hotton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Volponi-Hotton v. Hotton

2 A.D.3d 437, 767 N.Y.S.2d 836

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

DecidedDecember 1, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 2 A.D.3d 437 (Volponi-Hotton v. Hotton) 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

Volponi-Hotton v. Hotton, 2 A.D.3d 437, 767 N.Y.S.2d 836 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated April 16, 2003, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to direct him to pay the transfer taxes in connection with the transfer of the marital residence to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the disposition of marital property, both the amount and the method, is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Kiprilova v Kiprilov, 255 AD2d 362, 363 [1998]; Filax v Filax, 176 AD2d 1194, 1195 [1991]), and “its distribution of the parties’ marital property should not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in so doing” (Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515 [1996]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay the transfer taxes in connection with the transfer of the marital residence to the plaintiff. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, 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 an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated April 16, 2003, which granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was to direct him to pay the transfer taxes in connection with the transfer of the marital residence to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that the disposition of marital property, both the amount and the method, is generally left to the sound discretion of the trial court (see Kiprilova v Kiprilov, 255 AD2d 362, 363 [1998]; Filax v Filax, 176 AD2d 1194, 1195 [1991]), and “its distribution of the parties’ marital property should not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in so doing” (Oster v Goldberg, 226 AD2d 515 [1996]).

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing the defendant to pay the transfer taxes in connection with the transfer of the marital residence to the plaintiff. Florio, J.P., Krausman, Luciano, Townes and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2 A.D.3d 437, 767 N.Y.S.2d 836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/volponi-hotton-v-hotton-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack