Wade v. Steinfeld
| Decision Date | 07 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | 2003-08019. |
| Citation | 15 A.D.3d 390,790 N.Y.S.2d 64,2005 NY Slip Op 01010 |
| Parties | JANE WADE, Respondent, v. SHELDON STEINFELD, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, on the facts, and in the exercise of discretion (1) by deleting from the eleventh decretal paragraph the words "the sum of $50,000" and substituting therefor the words "the sum of $29,092," and (2) by deleting the third decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the following decretal paragraph:
"Ordered, adjudged and decreed that the plaintiff is awarded one half of the marital portion of the defendant's interest in the defendant's retirement benefits with the New York State Teacher's Retirement System, pursuant to and in accordance with the decision after trial dated February 7, 2003, amended to reflect a payment received by the defendant on June 30, 2000 of $99,514.30 of which $10,047.70 represented the defendant's unused vacation time that accrued after the action was commenced and not subject to equitable distribution"; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff was entitled to a credit of $117,000 prior to the distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the marital residence. The plaintiff overcame the presumption that she intended to commingle her funds by depositing them for three days in the parties' joint account (see Banking Law § 675 [b]; McGarrity v McGarrity, 211 AD2d 669, 671 [1995]; cf. Sherman v Sherman, 304 AD2d 744 [2003] []; Pauk v Pauk, 232 AD2d 386, 390 [1996] []; Krinsky v Krinsky, 208 AD2d 599, 600 [1994] [...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sinnott v. Sinnott
...v. Renck, 131 A.D.3d at 1149, 17 N.Y.S.3d 431 ; cf. Westreich v. Westreich, 169 A.D.3d at 977, 94 N.Y.S.3d 150 ; Wade v. Steinfeld, 15 A.D.3d 390, 391, 790 N.Y.S.2d 64 ).Contrary to the defendant's further contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by, in ef......
-
C. v. R.
...or circumstantial, that the account was created only as a matter of convenience (see Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, supra; Wade v. Steinfeld, 15 AD3d 390, 790 N.Y.S.2d 64 )" [emphasis added ] ( 33 AD3d 649, 649, 822 N.Y.S.2d 310 [2006] ).In Signorile v. Signorile , the Court found that "...the......
-
Achuthan v. Achuthan
...164 A.D.3d 1411, 1412–1413, 84 N.Y.S.3d 536 ; Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 24 A.D.3d 589, 593, 808 N.Y.S.2d 352 ; Wade v. Steinfeld, 15 A.D.3d 390, 391, 790 N.Y.S.2d 64 ). Moreover, the marital account into which the funds at issue were deposited was held only in the defendant's name (see Te......
-
Signorile v. Signorile
...of the spouse who claims the separate interest ( see Chamberlain v. Chamberlain, 24 A.D.3d at 593, 808 N.Y.S.2d 352;Wade v. Steinfeld, 15 A.D.3d 390, 391, 790 N.Y.S.2d 64;Giuffre v. Giuffre, 204 A.D.2d 684, 685, 612 N.Y.S.2d 439). Here, the defendant overcame the presumption that he intende......
-
§ 7.10 Pensions
...710 A.2d 556 (N.J. App. Div. 1998). New York: Olivo v. Olivo, 82 N.Y.2d 202, 604 N.Y.S.2d 23, 624 N.E.2d 151 (1993); Wade v. Steinfeld, 790 N.Y.S.2d 64 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Ohio: Layne v. Layne, 83 Ohio App.3d. 559, 615 N.E.2d 332 (1992). Pennsylvania: Meyer v. Meyer, 561 Pa. 225, 749 A.2......