Wright v. Wright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Wright v. Wright

247 A.D.2d 843, 668 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1142

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 843 (Wright v. Wright) 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

Wright v. Wright, 247 A.D.2d 843, 668 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified on the [844]*844law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff 50% of the appreciation in the W. Raymond Wright trust account held at Chase Manhattan Bank. The trust was created by a gift to defendant from his father, and the appreciation of the account during the marriage is also separate property because it resulted from the bank’s management of the account and market forces, not from defendant’s efforts (see, Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 46; Brown v Brown, 203 AD2d 912). We therefore modify the order by reducing the amount awarded plaintiff in the ninth ordering paragraph from $86,416 to $49,595.

The trust was

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Equitable Distribution.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified on the [844]*844law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in awarding plaintiff 50% of the appreciation in the W. Raymond Wright trust account held at Chase Manhattan Bank. The trust was created by a gift to defendant from his father, and the appreciation of the account during the marriage is also separate property because it resulted from the bank’s management of the account and market forces, not from defendant’s efforts (see, Hartog v Hartog, 85 NY2d 36, 46; Brown v Brown, 203 AD2d 912). We therefore modify the order by reducing the amount awarded plaintiff in the ninth ordering paragraph from $86,416 to $49,595.

The trust was

We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Frazee, J. — Equitable Distribution.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 843, 668 N.Y.S.2d 139, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1142, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wright-v-wright-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack