Payne v. Payne
| Decision Date | 23 February 2004 |
| Docket Number | 2002-06355.,2002-06357,2002-06358,2002-06359,2002-06356 |
| Parties | ANGELA PAYNE, Respondent, v. AUBREY PAYNE, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the appeals from the orders dated April 3, 2002, May 1, 2002, May 6, 2002, and the amended judgment entered June 3, 2002, are dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated February 5, 2003, is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendant's motion which was to vacate so much of the amended judgment as determined equitable distribution and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order dated February 5, 2003, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements, the order dated May 6, 2002, is vacated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings and a new determination on the issue of equitable distribution.
The appeals from the orders dated April 3, 2002, May 1, 2002, and May 6, 2002, are dismissed as academic. The appeal from the amended judgment must be dismissed as no appeal lies from a judgment entered upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Strohli v. Strohli
...v. Spera, 71 A.D.3d 661, 662, 898 N.Y.S.2d 548, quoting Milnes v. Milnes, 50 A.D.3d 750, 750, 857 N.Y.S.2d 168 ; see Payne v. Payne, 4 A.D.3d 512, 513–514, 771 N.Y.S.2d 714 ). "Nonetheless, [w]here it is evident that the Supreme Court considered all relevant factors and the reasons for its ......
-
Spera v. Spera
...it relied upon in distributing marital property" ( Milnes v. Milnes, 50 A.D.3d 750, 750, 857 N.Y.S.2d 168; see Payne v. Payne, 4 A.D.3d 512, 513-514, 771 N.Y.S.2d 714). Nonetheless, "[w]here it is evident that the Supreme Court considered all relevant factors and the reasons for its decisio......
-
Madu v. Madu
...Lewis v. Lewis, 118 A.D.3d 958, 960, 989 N.Y.S.2d 64 ; Morille–Hinds v. Hinds, 87 A.D.3d at 527, 928 N.Y.S.2d 727 ; Payne v. Payne, 4 A.D.3d 512, 513–514, 771 N.Y.S.2d 714 ). Additionally, the facts were not sufficiently developed at trial to enable a reasoned determination of the issue of ......
-
Irizarry v. Irizarry
...the factors it considered in deciding to equally distribute the parties' property ( see id. at 527, 928 N.Y.S.2d 727;Payne v. Payne, 4 A.D.3d 512, 513–514, 771 N.Y.S.2d 714). Similarly, as to child support, the Supreme Court failed to calculate the “combined parental income” of the parties,......