You are here: / / Appreciation of Value of Marital Residence Should Have Been Reduced by...

Appreciation of Value of Marital Residence Should Have Been Reduced by Cost of Improvements

The Second Department determined Supreme Court should have reduced the distributive award based upon the appreciation in value of the marital residence during the marriage by the equitable share of the marital debt incurred in making improvements to the residence:

While the marital residence was the plaintiff’s separate property, the Supreme Court directed the plaintiff to pay the defendant the sum of $102,500 as a distributive award based on the appreciation in value of the marital residence that was attributable to the efforts of both parties in physically improving the property during the marriage (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][d][3]…). Although the defendant’s counsel noted at trial that the defendant’s distributive award based on the appreciation of the marital residence should be reduced by the defendant’s equitable share of the marital debt incurred in financing the improvements to the residence, the Supreme Court improperly failed to do so… . Szewczuk v Szewczuk, 2013 NY Slip Op 03987, 2nd Dept, 6-5-13

 

You might also like
FAILURE TO RETURN KEYS DID NOT CONSTITUTE A FAILURE TO SURRENDER THE APARTMENT, TENANT ENTITLED TO RETURN OF SECURITY DEPOSIT.
PLAINTIFF SUBMITTED EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS’ BREACH OF A STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT; PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO VACATE (RESCIND) THE STIPULATION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A HEARING (SECOND DEPT).
IF THE 2008 FORECLOSURE ACTION COMMENCED BY AEGIS WAS VALID, THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION BY A DIFFERENT BANK WOULD BE TIME-BARRED; PLAINTIFF BANK RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT BY SUBMITTING EVIDENCE THAT AEGIS DID NOT POSSESS THE NOTE AND MORTGAGE AT THE TIME THE 2008 ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO FORECLOSE (SECOND DEPT).
ALLEGATION THAT LAW FIRM ADDUCED FALSE EVIDENCE IN A PROCEEDING MUST BE ASSERTED IN A MOTION TO VACATE THE JUDGMENT IN THAT PROCEEDING, NOT AS A NEW ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
A “CONCLUSORY AND UNSUBSTANTIATED” AFFIDAVIT DENYING DEFENDANT RESIDED AT THE ADDRESS WHERE SERVICE WAS MADE WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF PROPER SERVICE (SECOND DEPT).
Money Available to Father from Relatives for Children’s College Expenses Should Have Been Considered in Allocating those Expenses between Mother and Father
Where Plaintiff’s Vehicle Repaired to Pre-Accident Condition, No Additional Recovery for Diminution in Resale Value
INSURER WAS ENTITLED TO A FRAMED ISSUE HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER A HIT-AND-RUN VEHICLE WAS INVOLVED IN THE ACCIDENT (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Economic Necessity” Justified Relocation Out-Of-Possession Landlord Not Liable for Missing Light in Stairwell