You are here: / / AWARDING WIFE A DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF HUSBAND’S MEDICAL PRACTICE...

AWARDING WIFE A DISTRIBUTIVE SHARE OF HUSBAND’S MEDICAL PRACTICE AND DETERMINING HUSBAND’S MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION BASED UPON INCOME FROM THE PRACTICE DID NOT CONSTITUTE DOUBLE-COUNTING.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that distributing part of the value of defendant-husband's medical practice to the wife, and figuring the amount of maintenance defendant was to pay based upon his income from the medical practice, did not constitute double counting:

… [T]he defendant's medical practices, which employ other individuals including several doctors, and his interest in an ambulatory surgical center, are not intangible assets which are “totally indistinguishable” from the income stream upon which his maintenance obligation was based … , and the valuation method used by the plaintiff's expert to determine the fair market value of these assets does not change their essential nature. Accordingly, the Supreme Court erred in concluding that it had no discretion to award the plaintiff any distributive share of the value of these assets because the parties considered the defendant's entire 2010 income in reaching a stipulation as to his maintenance obligation. Palydowycz v Palydowycz, 2016 NY Slip Op 02793, 2nd Dept 4-13-16


You might also like
FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING HER CHILDREN TO APPLY FOR SPECIAL IMMIGRANT JUVENILE STATUS.
Most of Plaintiff’s Causes of Action Were Allegations Concerning the Conduct of a State Employee in His Official Capacity—Therefore, Those Causes of Action Were Actually Against the State and Could Only Be Heard in the Court of Claims/Elements of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Explained
EVIDENCE OF ACCESSORIAL LIABILITY INSUFFICIENT IN THIS JUVENILE DELINQUENCY PROCEEDING, PRESENCE IS NOT ENOUGH 2ND DEPT.
Once the Insurer Shows an Exclusion to Coverage Applies, the Burden is on the Insured to Demonstrate an Exception to the Exclusion Applies
HEARSAY ALONE CANNOT DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS DOG-BITE CASE PROPERLY GRANTED.
(HARMLESS) ERROR TO ALLOW THE LEAD DETECTIVE TO EXPLAIN THE ROLES PLAYED BY PERSONS RECORDED BY THE WIRETAPS, AND (HARMLESS) ERROR TO ADMIT THE WIRETAP ORDERS INTO EVIDENCE (SECOND DEPT).
Proof Requirements for Lack of Constructive Notice of Dangerous Condition Explained
THE MOVEMENT OF THE COMMON CARRIER’S VAN WAS NOT UNUSUAL OR VIOLENT, THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT BY A PASSENGER SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (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

DEFENSE WAIVED ANY OBJECTION TO A PROHIBITED CONVERSATION BETWEEN A COURT OFFICER... FAMILY COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED MOTHER’S APPLICATION FOR FINDINGS ALLOWING...