Cohn v. Cohn
| Decision Date | 06 November 1989 |
| Citation | 155 A.D.2d 412,547 N.Y.S.2d 85 |
| Parties | Bernard COHN, Respondent-Appellant, v. Toby COHN, Appellant-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Freedman, Weisbein, Samuelson & Rieger, P.C., Garden City (Elliot D. Samuelson and Anthony Yovino of counsel), for appellant-respondent.
Gassman Gouz & Fisher, Garden City (Stephen Gassman of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and BROWN, LAWRENCE and SPATT, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals and the plaintiff husband cross-appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated October 25, 1988, as determined that the plaintiff husband's 50% interest in Boro Fuel Oil Company, Inc., would be valued as of December 31, 1986, and the plaintiff husband also cross-appeals from so much of the same order as determined that his pension would be valued as of the time of commencement of the trial.
ORDERED that the order is modified by deleting therefrom the provision which determined that the plaintiff husband's pension will be valued as of the time of commencement of the trial and substituting therefor a provision that the plaintiff husband's pension will be valued as of the date of the commencement of the divorce action; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the parties' respective contentions, we conclude that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in ruling that the plaintiff-husband's 50% interest in Boro Fuel Oil Company, Inc. would be valued as of December 31, 1986, as opposed to the time of the commencement of the divorce action, i.e. May 1985, or the date of the commencement of the trial. It is well established that the trial courts possess the discretion to select valuation dates for the parties' marital assets which are appropriate and fair under the particular facts and circumstances presented (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][4][b]; Marcus v. Marcus, 137 A.D.2d 131, 525 N.Y.S.2d 238; Siegel v. Siegel, 132 A.D.2d 247, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517; Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 232-233, 509 N.Y.S.2d 342, remittitur amended 123 A.D.2d 238). Based on the record herein, we perceive no basis for disturbing the Supreme Court's valuation date for the plaintiff-husband's business interest. Moreover, the fact that the court failed to delineate its specific...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnston v. Nakis
...Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][1][c] ; Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 474 N.Y.S.2d 699, 463 N.E.2d 15.)Cohn v. Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412, 413, 547 N.Y.S.2d 85 (2d Dept.1989). Contrary to defendant's argument, however, he had the burden to establish value. Grenier v. Grenier, 210 A.D.2d ......
-
Miness v. Miness
...parties, it is nonetheless supported by the record (see, Terico v. Terico, 222 A.D.2d 219, 634 N.Y.S.2d 121; see also, Cohn v. Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412, 547 N.Y.S.2d 85). The wife was awarded lifetime maintenance of $2,000 per week for the first five years and $1,000 per week thereafter. In lig......
-
Glazer v. Glazer
...of the proper value of the pension fund measured by contributions made during the marriage and reconciliation (see, Cohn v. Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412, 413, 547 N.Y.S.2d 85). Similarly, we find that Supreme Court erred in determining that the entire value of the Travelers Tax Shelter Annuity was ......
-
Moody v. Moody
...assets which are appropriate and fair under the circumstances (see, Savage v. Savage, 155 A.D.2d 336, 547 N.Y.S.2d 306; Cohn v. Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412, 547 N.Y.S.2d 85; Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 235-236, 509 N.Y.S.2d 342), where the asset to be valued is the marital residence, the val......
-
§ 13.03 Miscellaneous Equitable Distribution Issues
...N.W.2d 631 (Mich. App. 1991). New Hampshire: Hillenbrand v. Hillenbrand, 14 Fam. L. Rep. (BNA) 1424 (N.H. 1988). New York: Cohn v. Cohn, 155 A.D.2d 412, 547 N.Y.S.2d 85 (1989); Siegel v. Siegel, 132 A.D.2d 247, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517 (1987); Wegman v. Wegman, 123 A.D.2d 220, 509 N.Y.S.2d 342 (198......