Siegel v. Siegel

CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
CitationSiegel v. Siegel, 530 N.Y.S.2d 108, 71 N.Y.2d 1021 (N.Y. 1988)
Decision Date31 May 1988
Parties, 525 N.E.2d 753 Bernard SIEGEL, Respondent, v. Adele SIEGEL, Appellant.

Reported below: 132 A.D.2d 247, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517.

Appeal dismissed without costs, by the Court sua sponte, upon the ground that no appeal lies as of right from the unanimous order of the Appellate Division absent the direct involvement of a substantial constitutional question (CPLR 5601).

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
10 cases
  • Simkin v. Blank
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • January 4, 2011
    ...interest in company after divorce]; Siegel v. Siegel, 132 A.D.2d 247, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517 [1987], appeal dismissed71 N.Y.2d 1021, 530 N.Y.S.2d 108, 525 N.E.2d 753 [1998], lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 602, 541 N.Y.S.2d 985, 539 N.E.2d 1113 [1989] [plaintiff's motion for a new trial denied when artist D......
  • McGowan v. McGowan
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 30, 1988
    ...743, 489 N.E.2d 712 [Meyer, J., concurring]; Siegel v. Siegel, 132 A.D.2d 247, 254, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517, appeal dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 1021, 530 N.Y.S.2d 108, 525 N.E.2d 753 [fluctuation of value of marital asset after divorce decree is entered does not warrant granting of postjudgment motion to ......
  • Kumar v. Kumar
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • June 28, 2012
    ...N.Y.S.2d 1003, 538 N.E.2d 355 [1989];Siegel v. Siegel, 132 A.D.2d 247, 255, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517 [1987],appeal dismissed71 N.Y.2d 1021, 530 N.Y.S.2d 108, 525 N.E.2d 753 [1988],lv. denied74 N.Y.2d 602, 541 N.Y.S.2d 985, 539 N.E.2d 1113 [1989] ).3THE HUSBAND ALSO POINTS TO OTHER MARITAL ASSETS TH......
  • Vicinanzo v. Vicinanzo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 20, 1993
    ...expert's opinion is found unacceptable (see, Siegel v. Siegel, 132 A.D.2d 247, 252, 523 N.Y.S.2d 517, appeal dismissed 71 N.Y.2d 1021, 530 N.Y.S.2d 108, 525 N.E.2d 753, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 602, 541 N.Y.S.2d 985, 539 N.E.2d 1113). If no evidence of value is tendered, an average year's earni......
  • Get Started for Free