april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acosta, JJ. 3399 Silke Winter, Index 350534/04 Plaintiff-Respondent-Appellant, -against- Pierre Winter, Defendant-Appellant-Respondent. _________________________ Burger Yagerman & Green, New York (Nancy M. Green of counsel), for appellant-respondent. Chemtob Moss Forman & Talbert, LLP, New York (Paul M. Talbert of counsel), for respondent-appellant. _________________________ Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Visitación- Lewis, J.), entered January 11, 2007, after a nonjury trial, to the extent appealed and cross-appealed from, setting amounts of spousal maintenance, child support and defendant husband’s share of add-on child expenses, allocating marital property and assets subject to certain credits including accounting for wasteful dissipation, denying defendant credit for pendente lite mortgage payments on the marital residence, and ordering defendant to pay 40% of plaintiff’s legal fees, unanimously modified, on the facts, to reduce defendant’s obligation with respect to plaintiff's legal fees to 30%, and to reduce the value assigned to the parties’ Jeep Cherokee from $<strong>15</strong>,000 to $11,000, and otherwise affirmed, without costs. The parties were married in 1997 and have one child, born in 2002. This divorce action was commenced in 2004. The parties 22
stipulated to the grounds, and the financial aspects were tried over the course of six days, during which defendant appeared pro se. To a large extent, defendant’s appeal is based on the court’s determinations that a gift from plaintiff’s father toward the purchase of the marital home was a gift of separate property to her and that she individually owned certain bank accounts and income-producing property in Germany. These determinations were made by the court based upon its finding that defendant’s testimony as to these assets lacked credibility, in contrast to the testimony of plaintiff and her father, both of whom the court found to be credible. We see no basis in the record to disturb these findings of credibility, which are entitled to great weight on appeal (see Antes v Antes, 304 AD2d 597 [2003]). In determining the value of the Jeep Cherokee, the court used the vehicle’s 2004 purchase price of $<strong>15</strong>,000. In her September 30, 2005 net worth statement, plaintiff valued that asset at $11,000. In the absence of any other evidence as to the vehicle’s worth, plaintiff’s valuation should have been adopted by the court. At trial, while defendant generally preserved his right to challenge the reasonableness of attorney fees incurred by plaintiff, he did so by asking limited questions that fail to provide a basis for disturbing the court’s findings on this 23
Page 1 and 2: SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION F
Page 3 and 4: Lippman, P.J., Tom, Williams, Acost
Page 5 and 6: Danann Realty Corp. v Harris, 5 NY2
Page 7 and 8: Circle Rubbish launched “a force
Page 9 and 10: classes, and scheduling visits with
Page 13 and 14: was cut too deep. Defendants’ the
Page 21: witnesses and collective tailoring
Page 29 and 30: Mullaney v Wilbur, 421 US 684 [1975
Page 33 and 34: liability claims “share few, if a
Page 35 and 36: ecords of drug transactions and def
Page 37 and 38: argument that this testimony invade
Page 39 and 40: in the 12 hours prior to plaintiff
Page 41 and 42: individual as the sole tenant in th
Page 43 and 44: opposed the motion, and pending the
Page 45 and 46: that defendant’s vehicle was regi
Page 47 and 48: arrests respectively. In fact, one
Page 49 and 50: inmate-victim who vaguely claimed t
Page 51 and 52: CATTERSON, J. (dissenting) Because
Page 53 and 54: person that’s in the cell closest
Page 55 and 56: evidence that anyone had intimidate
Page 57 and 58: him. See People v. Harte, 29 A.D.3d
Page 59 and 60: summary judgment on his Labor Law
Page 61 and 62: aise a triable issue as to construc
Page 63 and 64: specific substance of the conversat
Page 65 and 66: Gonzalez, J.P., Williams, Catterson
Page 67 and 68: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 69 and 70: interest of justice. As an alternat
Page 71 and 72: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 73 and 74:
Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Friedman
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
leave to amend the complaint to ass
Page 79 and 80:
in the first degree. After being de
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
decline to review it in the interes
Page 85 and 86:
panelist understood that he needed
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
to be compensated for its services
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Lippman, P.J., Saxe, Nardelli, Will
Page 101 and 102:
Lippman, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, And
Page 103 and 104:
Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Gonza
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Gonzalez, J.P., Nardelli, Buckley,
Page 109:
The Following Orders Were Entered A
show all

april 15, 2008 - Criminal Law Library Blog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?