Wohl v. Wohl

63 A.D.3d 542, 880 N.Y.S.2d 481

This text of 63 A.D.3d 542 (Wohl v. Wohl) 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
Wohl v. Wohl, 63 A.D.3d 542, 880 N.Y.S.2d 481 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Beeler, J.), entered November 21, 2008, which denied defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment seeking to limit the evaluation period for the appreciation of certain of defendant’s separate property, or, in the alternative, for a declaration limiting the evaluation period for the appreciation of this property to the period of time after this property was formally received by him from the estate of his father rather than from the time of his father’s death and bequest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Marital property, subject to equitable distribution, “includes property acquired by either spouse during the marriage ‘regardless of the form in which title is held’ ” (Bartha v Bartha, 15 AD3d 111, 115 [2005], quoting Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]). Here, the court properly denied defendant’s motion because defendant acquired a property interest in certain businesses upon his father’s death in 1979 (see Matter of Columbia Trust Co., 186 App Div 377, 380 [1919]). It is irrelevant that the business interests inherited by defendant were not distributed for some 25 years, purportedly due to an internal family dispute. [543]*543Thus, although defendant’s actual interest in the subject businesses is his separate property, “any appreciation in value of such separate property may be subject to distribution if there is a nexus between the titled spouse’s efforts and the increase in value and those efforts were ‘aided or facilitated’ by the nontitled spouse” (Van Dyke v Van Dyke, 273 AD2d 589, 592 [2000], quoting Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 46 [1995], quoting Price v Price, 69 NY2d 8, 18 [1986]). Concur—Andrias, J.E, Catterson, Renwick, DeGrasse and Freedman, JJ.

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

Related

Hartog v. Hartog
647 N.E.2d 749 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
In re the Judicial Settlement of the Account of Proceedings of Columbia Trust Co.
186 A.D. 377 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1919)
Price v. Price
503 N.E.2d 684 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
Bartha v. Bartha
15 A.D.3d 111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Dyke v. Dyke
273 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
63 A.D.3d 542, 880 N.Y.S.2d 481, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wohl-v-wohl-nyappdiv-2009.