You are here: / / A REJECTED PURCHASE OFFER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL TO PROVE THE FAIR...

A REJECTED PURCHASE OFFER WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL TO PROVE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE MARITAL RESIDENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​

The First Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court in this divorce case, determined a purchase offer was not admissible to show the fair market value of the marital residence:

Order … which … granted plaintiff’s motion to set a minimum net value for marital real property located in Southampton, New York, at $20 million for equitable distribution purposes, unanimously reversed … .

With respect to the parties’ Southampton marital property, we find that the court erred in imposing a minimum value based on a purchase offer of $20 million rejected by defendant, as evidence of an offer to purchase is generally inadmissible at trial to show fair market value … . Lauren S. v Alexander S., 2022 NY Slip Op 03462, First Dept 5-26-22

Practice Point: In a divorce action, a rejected purchase offer was not admissible at trial to prove the fair market value of a marital residence.

 

You might also like
Res Ipsa Loquitur Doctrine Can Apply to an Elevator Maintenance Company Even Where there Is No Proof the Company Had Actual or Constructive Notice of Elevator Misleveling
FAMILY COURT EXERCISED THE PROPER LEVEL OF CONSIDERATION OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IN THIS TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS PROCEEDING, THE MOOTNESS EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THE APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
Criteria for Domicile Explained
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANT FOREIGN CORPORATION DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN NEW YORK COUNTY, IT HAD DESIGNATED NEW YORK COUNTY AS ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS IN ITS FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE, MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
Court Has Inherent Authority to Reinstate Indictment After Dismissal for Legal Insufficiency
PLAINTIFF FELL FROM A SCAFFOLD WHICH DID NOT HAVE GUARDRAILS AND WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON HIS LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION DESPITE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENTS THAT PLAINTIFF DID NOT LOCK THE WHEELS ON THE SCAFFOLD AND PLAINTIFF MAY HAVE FAINTED OR STEPPED BACKWARDS OFF THE SCAFFOLD (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER REPLACING A WATER HEATER CONSTITUTED A REPAIR AS OPPOSED TO MAINTENANCE AND WHETHER AN ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD WAS INVOLVED IN MOVING THE WATER HEATER WITH A HAND TRUCK PRECLUDED DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S WORK, DELIVERING TILES TO THE WORK SITE, WAS COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1) AS “NECESSARY AND INCIDENTAL” TO THE PROTECTED CONSTRUCTION-ACTIVITY (FIRST 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

GROUNDANYWHERE DRIVERS, LIKE UBER DRIVERS, ARE EMPLOYEES, NOT INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS,... RARE SLIP AND FALL WON BY THE DEFENDANT AT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEMONSTRATING...