Summary
In Parker v. Parker, 240 A.D.2d 554, 555 (2nd Dept.1997), for example, the Second Department rejected the husband's claim that property inherited from a family member and property gifted to him by another family member were his separate property because his claims “were not established by clear and convincing evidence ” (emphasis added).
Summary of this case from E.R.S. v. B.C.S.Opinion
June 16, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Carey, J.H.O.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
Contrary to the findings of the Supreme Court, the parties' stipulation of partial settlement dated September 22, 1995, did not bar the husband's claim for a credit against the parties' marital assets to reflect a $20,000 gift from his grandfather and an $11,000 inheritance from his grandfather's sister. Exhibit A to the stipulation clearly provides that these issues, if not resolved by the parties prior to trial, shall be presented to the Judicial Hearing Officer for his determination. However, in the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the husband's claims for his alleged separate property contributions, which were fully litigated, were not established by clear and convincing evidence (see, Stavans v. Stavans, 207 A.D.2d 392; Kirshenbaum v. Kirshenbaum, 203 A.D.2d 534; Pullman v Pullman, 176 A.D.2d 113; Lischynsky v. Lischynsky, 120 A.D.2d 824).
The husband's remaining contentions are without merit.
Miller, J.P., Copertino, Sullivan and Altman, JJ., concur.