You are here: / / THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED...

THE PARTIES MARRIED IN 1974, STARTED DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN 1991, DISCONTINUED THE DIVORCE AND BEGAN LIVING TOGETHER AGAIN IN 1998, CONTINUED LIVING TOGETHER UNTIL THE INSTANT DIVORCE IN 2015; SUPREME COURT ERRED IN FINDING THE ECONOMIC PARTNERSHIP ENDED IN 1991; MATTER REMITTED FOR RECALCULATION OF THE MARITAL PROPERTY AND COUNSEL FEES (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, remitting the matter for recalculation of equitable distribution of marital assets and counsel fees, determined Supreme Court erred in finding that the parties ceased to be an economic partnership when they separated and divorce proceedings were commenced in 1991. The parties were married in 1974. The divorce was discontinued in 1998 when defendant moved back into the marital residence. The couple lived together until the instant separation and divorce proceedings in 2015:

… [T]he parties resided together in the marital residence from 1998 until the commencement of the subject action in 2015, and for most of that time, shared the marital residence with the children. During that time, the parties visited relatives and attended social functions together, went on vacations together, and periodically engaged in sexual relations. Although the parties maintained separate bank accounts and credit cards, the parties filed joint tax returns and shared many of the family’s expenses, including the children’s college tuition and home renovations. Moreover, the parties named each other as executors and beneficiaries in their wills. Thus, the evidence demonstrates that the parties functioned as an “economic partnership” after the discontinuance of the prior divorce action, and the Supreme Court improperly found that the parties “ceased functioning as an economic partnership” and “lived separate financial lives” starting in 1991 … . …

… [T]here was no written agreement to keep the parties’ finances separate (cf. Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][d][4]). “Marital partners may agree that property they acquire during the marriage will be divided in a particular manner, but that agreement must be in writing” … , or “be part of an oral stipulation placed upon the record in open court and acknowledged in writing to be free from fraud, undue influence and duress” … . Here, the alleged oral agreement between the parties does not constitute such an agreement. Thus, the distribution of marital property “must be based upon the equitable consideration and application of . . . enumerated factors” … , and the court is required to “set forth the factors it considered and the reasons for its decision” … . Potvin v Potvin, 2021 NY Slip Op 02429, Second Dept 4-21-21

 

You might also like
THE USUAL PROHIBITIONS RE: VACATING ORDERS ISSUED OPON A PARTY’S DEFAULT DO NOT APPLY IN CHILD CUSTODY MATTERS; TO MODIFY CUSTODY, A FULL AND PLENARY HEARING IS NECESSARY; IF A PARTY DOES NOT APPEAR IN A MODIFICATION PROCEEDING, AN INQUEST SHOULD BE HELD TO CREATE A RECORD (SECOND DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ORDER OF PROTECTION ISSUED AT SENTENCING WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
THE CHILDREN’S HEARSAY EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE FATHER LEGALLY POSSESSED A FIREARM DID NOT SUPPORT THE NEGLECT FINDING; THE EVIDENTIARY CRITERIA FOR NEGLECT ARE EXPLAINED IN DETAIL (SECOND DEPT).
Four-Month Statute of Limitations for Challenging Termination of a Firefighter Runs from the Effective Date of Termination, Not the Date of Notification
Automobile Policy Does Not Cover Injury to Passerby Bitten by a Dog Which Was Inside a Vehicle
A Three-and-a-Half-Foot Fall from a Railing to a Raised Platform Was Covered by Labor Law 240(1)–Elements of Labor Law 240(1), 200 and 246(1) Causes of Action Explained—Failure to State (in the Pleadings) the Particular Industrial Code Provision Alleged to Have Been Violated Was Not Fatal to the Labor Law 246(1) Cause of Action—Belated Identification of the Code Provision Did Not Prejudice Defendant
No Allegation Plaintiffs’ “Physical Safety” Was Endangered Re: Cause of Action for Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress/No Allegation of Sufficiently Extreme and Outrageous Conduct Re: Cause of Action for Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress—Those Causes of Action Were Therefore Properly Dismissed
PLAINTIFF IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304; EVIDENCE OFFERED FOR THE FIRST TIME IN REPLY CAN BE CONSIDERED IF THE OPPOSING PARTY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (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

APPEAL HELD AND MATTER REMITTED TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO MOVE TO VACATE HIS GUILTY... THE PROPERTY OWNERS DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE STOVE IN...