Lipovsky v. Lipovsky
| Decision Date | 24 April 2000 |
| Citation | 271 A.D.2d 658,706 N.Y.S.2d 185 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | BORIS LIPOVSKY, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>ELEANOR LIPOVSKY, Appellant. |
Joy, J. P., Thompson, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by deleting the fifth decretal paragraph thereof awarding maintenance in the sum of $1,205 per month for 100 months, and deleting from the ninth decretal paragraph the phrase "in the form of maintenance, as provided for in the maintenance provision set forth above"; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the defendant, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new determination (a) as to the manner of distribution of the defendant's equitable share of the plaintiff's medical practice and license, and (b) as to the amount of maintenance to be awarded, if any.
The defendant contends, inter alia, that the Supreme Court violated the doctrine of law of the case by valuing the plaintiff's medical practice as of 1989 when the action was commenced, rather than as of 1994, in accordance with an earlier order of the same court, dated November 14, 1994. We disagree.
The doctrine of law of the case operates to foreclose the reexamination of a question absent a showing of a change of law (see, Matter of Yeampierre v Gutman, 57 AD2d 898). Here the relevant law relating to the valuation of professional licenses changed after the issuance of the order dated November 14, 1994. In McSparron v McSparron (87 NY2d 275), the Court of Appeals held that a professional license that has been utilized by the spouse licensee to establish and maintain a career did not merge with the career and thereby lose its character as a separate distributable asset. Given the change in the relevant law, the Supreme Court was no longer bound by the prior order.
Under the circumstances of this case, where the marriage was of long duration and both parties had made significant contributions to it, the Supreme Court properly made the division of the marital assets as equal as possible (see, Granade-Bastuck v Bastuck, 249 AD2d 444).
There was conflicting testimony with respect to the value of the plaintiff's medical practice. The Supreme Court credited the opinion of the plaintiff's expert and we find no error in this regard (see, Vainchenker v Vainchenker, 242 AD2d 620). However, the Supreme Court erred in directing that the defendant's equitable share of $120,500 in the plaintiff's medical practice and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kaufman v. Kaufman
...of the predivorce standard of living (see Hartog v. Hartog, 85 N.Y.2d 36, 52, 623 N.Y.S.2d 537, 647 N.E.2d 749 ; Lipovsky v. Lipovsky, 271 A.D.2d 658, 659, 706 N.Y.S.2d 185 ). Where a substantial equitable distribution award obviates, or reduces, the need for maintenance, it would not be im......
-
People v. Aleynikov
...; Seltzer v. New York State Democratic Committee , 293 A.D.2d 172, 174, 743 N.Y.S.2d 565 (2d Dept. 2002) ; Lipovsky v. Lipovsky , 271 A.D.2d 658, 706 N.Y.S.2d 185 (2d Dept. 2000), lv denied , 96 N.Y.2d 712, 729 N.Y.S.2d 440, 754 N.E.2d 200 (2001).19 Aleynikov notes that the Court of Appeals......
-
Bellizzi v. Bellizzi
...Supreme Court in this case to arrive at a monthly amount less than the monthly value of the pensions ( see e.g. Lipovsky v. Lipovsky, 271 A.D.2d 658, 659, 706 N.Y.S.2d 185 [2000],lv. dismissed95 N.Y.2d 886, 715 N.Y.S.2d 377, 738 N.E.2d 781 [2000],lv. denied96 N.Y.2d 712, 729 N.Y.S.2d 440, 7......
-
Ripka v. Ripka
...rather than as a division of marital property" ( Buzzeo v. Buzzeo, 141 A.D.2d 490, 491, 529 N.Y.S.2d 120; see Lipovsky v. Lipovsky, 271 A.D.2d 658, 659, 706 N.Y.S.2d 185, lv. dismissed 95 N.Y.2d 886, 715 N.Y.S.2d 377, 738 N.E.2d 781, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 712, 729 N.Y.S.2d 440, 754 N.E.2d 20......