You are here: / / IN THIS POST-DIVORCE ACTION, THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE PARTIES’...
,

IN THIS POST-DIVORCE ACTION, THE PROCEEDS OF THE SALE OF THE PARTIES’ REAL PROPERTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT A FULL EVIDENTIARY HEARING (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the court should have conducted a hearing before distributing the proceeds of the sale of the parties’ farm in this post-divorce action:

… [T]he court erred in deciding the value of plaintiff’s credits without a full evidentiary hearing permitting the parties to offer proof of valuation … . Plaintiff offered no direct proof of the value of the relevant assets, and defendant was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the court-appointed appraiser or review the appraisals … . The court’s decision also failed to articulate the factors it considered or the reasons for its determination to partially grant certain credits to plaintiff and deny others … . … [W]e remit the matter to Supreme Court for a hearing and appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law with respect to the parties’ entitlement to credits. Edwards v Edwards, 2021 NY Slip Op 06504, Fourth Dept 11-19-21

 

You might also like
Defense Counsel’s Failure to Object to Considerable Testimony About Prior Consistent Statements Made by the Victim Concerning Alleged Sexual Abuse Did Not Constitute Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
FRAUD WARRANTED INVALIDATION OF THE DESIGNATING PETITION (FOURTH DEPT). ​
DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SEVERANCE FROM THE CODEFENDANTS, CODEFENDANTS TOOK AN AGGRESSIVE ADVERSERIAL STANCE AGAINST DEFENDANT AT TRIAL, NEW TRIAL ORDERED.
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE APPLIED IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE; DEFENDANT SAW THE VEHICLE WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RAN THE STOP SIGN AND THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TOO FAST TO STOP; QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE TAKEN EVASIVE ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
Response to Jury Note Without Notice to Defendant Required Reversal and a New Trial
THE CONTEMPT FINDING AND THE $535,000 FINE WERE BASED ON AN ORDER WHICH SUPREME COURT DID NOT HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO ISSUE (FOURTH DEPT).
Untimely Demand for Reinstatement Warranted Dismissal of Action to Compel Reinstatement
THE ADDITIONAL FIVE-YEAR CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES PURSUANT TO PENAL LAW 265.09 (2) DID NOT APPLY TO FIVE COUNTS OF THE INDICTMENT; THE APPEAL OF AN ILLEGAL SENTENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE PRESERVATION (FOURTH 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

THE FACTS THAT THE PARKED CAR IN WHICH DEFENDANT WAS SITTING WITH TWO OTHERS... IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT ACTION ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE BY THE DEFAULTING DEFENDANT...