Buchsbaum v. Buchsbaum
Cases that cite this one
10 later published cases cite this decision.
- Shah v. Shah (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Shah v. Shah (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Spencer-Forrest v. Forrest (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Lucere v. Lucere (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Lucere v. Lucere (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
- Scher v. Scher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- DeGroat v. DeGroat (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Dellafiora v. Dellafiora (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Falgoust v. Falgoust (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Polizzano v. Polizzano (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 30, 1997, the plaintiff former wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jonas, J.), entered December 22, 2000, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, awarded her $6,000 per month in maintenance, in effect, only until she attained 70V2 years of age, and the defendant former husband cross-appeals, as limited by his brief, frqm so much qf the same judgment as allecated to him for purposes of equitable distribution certain marital assets which he unilaterally distributed to third parties.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The amount and duration of maintenance to be awarded is a
Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) (12) provides that in determining the equitable distribution of marital property, the court may consider "any transfer or encumbrance made in contemplation of a matrimonial action without fair consideration.” Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the evidence supports the Supreme Court’s conclusion that his familial gifts and charitable transfers before the commencement of this action were made in contemplation of the matrimonial action (see Ferraro v Ferraro, 257 AD2d 596).
The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Feuerstein, Luciano and Schmidt, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.