Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011

Le v. Le

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 8, 2011

82 A.D.3d 845; 918 N.Y.2d 561

Cases that cite this one

20 later published cases cite this decision.

Uttamchandani v. Uttamchandani (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
Gargiulo v. Gargiulo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
Westbrook v. Westbrook (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
Goldman v. Goldman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
ANTINORA, JULIE W. v. ANTINORA, TERRANCE J. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
Savino v. Savino (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Mohamed v. Abuhamra (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
Bari v. Bari (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
Morales v. Carvajal (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
Turbeville v. Turbeville (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
Hymowitz v. Hymowitz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
BELKHIR, LOTFI v. AMRANE-BELKHIR, SOUAD (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Turco v. Turco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Turco v. Turco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Belkhir v. Amrane-Belkhir (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Belkhir v. Amrane-Belkhir (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2014)
Heymann v. Heymann (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
Heymann v. Heymann (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
McCaffrey v. McCaffrey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)
McCaffrey v. McCaffrey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2013)

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the plaintiff is entitled to receive a credit against the proceeds of the sale of the marital residence for the money that she paid to reduce the balance of the mortgage during the pendency of the divorce action (see Markopoulos v Markopoulos, 274 AD2d 457 [2000]). She made these payments without any contribution from the defendant (see e.g. Freigang v Freigang, 256 AD2d 539 [1998]). *846Where, as here, a party has paid the other party’s share of what proves to be marital debt, such as the mortgage, taxes, and insurance on the marital residence, reimbursement is required (see generally Epstein v Messner, 73 AD3d 843 [2010]). However, the plaintiff was entitled to only a 50% of the reduction in mortgage principal because “[generally it is the responsibility of both parties to maintain the marital residence . . . during the pendency of a matrimonial action” (Judge v Judge, 48 AD3d 424, 425-426 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]; see Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680 [2004]). Therefore, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in awarding the plaintiff a credit for 100% of the payments she made on the marital residence during the divorce proceedings.

The remaining contentions are without merit. Co vello, J.E, Lott, Roman and Miller, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.