Rubin v. Rubin
Decision Date | 20 October 2003 |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Parties | SHEILA A. RUBIN, Appellant-Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>BRUCE RUBIN, Respondent-Appellant. |
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
(Pauk v Pauk, 232 AD2d 386, 391 [1996]; see Mutt v Mutt, 242 AD2d 612 [1997]). The defendant, relying only on conclusory assertions, failed to sustain his burden (see Pauk v Pauk, supra). Accordingly, the defendant was not entitled to an equitable distribution of the appreciation of the plaintiff's interest in her separate property, consisting of an interest in a family business founded by her father prior to the commencement of the marriage.
Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, she is not entitled to an award of child support (see Holihan v Holihan, 159 AD2d 685, 687 [1990]).
The parties' remaining contentions are without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morales v. Inzerra
...his contributions resulted in any alleged appreciation ( see Embury v. Embury, 49 A.D.3d at 804, 854 N.Y.S.2d 502;Rubin v. Rubin, 309 A.D.2d 846, 847, 766 N.Y.S.2d 68;cf. Imhof v. Imhof, 259 A.D.2d at 667, 686 N.Y.S.2d 825). The “amount and duration of maintenance is a matter committed to t......
- Rosse-Glickman v. BETH ISRAEL MEDICAL CENTER-KINGS HIGHWAY DIVISION