Rosen v. Rosen

8 Citing cases

  1. Silvers v. Silvers

    No. 2017-07181 (N.Y. App. Div. Sep. 15, 2021)

    "The party alleging that his or her spouse has engaged in wasteful dissipation of marital assets bears the burden of proving such waste by a preponderance of the evidence" (Rosenv Rosen, 192 A.D.3d 710, 712, quoting Marino v Marino, 183 A.D.3d 813, 820 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Epstein v Messner, 73 A.D.3d 843, 846). "There may be circumstances where equity requires a credit to one spouse for marital property used to pay off the separate debt of one spouse or add to the value of one spouse's separate property" (Mahoney-Buntzman v Buntzman, 12 N.Y.3d 415, 421; see Sheehan v Sheehan, 161 A.D.3d 912, 915).

  2. Silvers v. Silvers

    197 A.D.3d 1195 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)   Cited 32 times

    y given the 32–year duration of the parties’ marriage, the plaintiff's and the defendant's relatively advanced ages of 67 and 70, respectively, at the time of trial, and the plaintiff's longtime indirect contributions to the businesses by supporting the defendant and affording him the time and energy to manage the family enterprises, and given that the defendant's testimony concerning both the Agency and JAVE was found to lack credibility, the court's award to each party of 50% of the defendant's interest in the Agency and JAVE was proper and should not be disturbed on appeal (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][d] ; see alsoMizrahi–Srour v. Srour, 138 A.D.3d 801, 802–803, 29 N.Y.S.3d 516 ; Sogoloff v. Sogoloff, 124 A.D.3d 539, 540, 2 N.Y.S.3d 106 ; Wasserman v. Wasserman, 66 A.D.3d 880, 882, 888 N.Y.S.2d 90 ). "The party alleging that his or her spouse has engaged in wasteful dissipation of marital assets bears the burden of proving such waste by a preponderance of the evidence" ( Rosen v. Rosen, 192 A.D.3d 710, 712, 142 N.Y.S.3d 609, quoting Marino v. Marino, 183 A.D.3d 813, 820, 123 N.Y.S.3d 638 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Epstein v. Messner, 73 A.D.3d 843, 846, 900 N.Y.S.2d 454 ). "There may be circumstances where equity requires a credit to one spouse for marital property used to pay off the separate debt of one spouse or add to the value of one spouse's separate property" ( Mahoney–Buntzman v. Buntzman, 12 N.Y.3d 415, 421, 881 N.Y.S.2d 369, 909 N.E.2d 62 ; seeSheehan v. Sheehan, 161 A.D.3d 912, 915, 77 N.Y.S.3d 152 ). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff met her burden of proving the defendant's wasteful dissipation of marital assets by a preponderance of the evidence (seeRosen v. Rosen, 192 A.D.3d at 713, 142 N.Y.S.3d 609 ; Marino v. Marino, 183 A.D.3d at 820, 123 N.Y.S.3d 638 ; Epstein v. Messner, 73 A.D.3d at 846, 900 N.Y.S.2d 454 ).

  3. Silvers v. Silvers

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 4987 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    tiff's and the defendant's relatively advanced ages of 67 and 70, respectively, at the time of trial, and the plaintiff's longtime indirect contributions to the businesses by supporting the defendant and affording him the time and energy to manage the family enterprises, and given that the defendant's testimony concerning both the Agency and JAVE was found to lack credibility, the court's award to each party of 50% of the defendant's interest in the Agency and JAVE was proper and should not be disturbed on appeal (see Domestic Relations Law § 236[B][5][d]; see also Mizrahi-Srour v Srour, 138 A.D.3d 801, 802-803; Sogoloff v Sogoloff, 124 A.D.3d 539, 540; Wasserman v Wasserman, 66 A.D.3d 880, 882). "The party alleging that his or her spouse has engaged in wasteful dissipation of marital assets bears the burden of proving such waste by a preponderance of the evidence" (Rosen v Rosen, 192 A.D.3d 710, 712, quoting Marino v Marino, 183 A.D.3d 813, 820 [internal quotation marks omitted]; Epstein v Messner, 73 A.D.3d 843, 846). "There may be circumstances where equity requires a credit to one spouse for marital property used to pay off the separate debt of one spouse or add to the value of one spouse's separate property" (Mahoney-Buntzman v Buntzman, 12 N.Y.3d 415, 421; see Sheehan v Sheehan, 161 A.D.3d 912, 915). Here, the Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff met her burden of proving the defendant's wasteful dissipation of marital assets by a preponderance of the evidence (see Rosen v Rosen, 192 A.D.3d at 713; Marino v Marino, 183 A.D.3d at 820; Epstein v Messner, 73 A.D.3d at 846).

  4. Kirshner v. Kirshner

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 3475 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    The Supreme Court also providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant a credit in the sum of $10,000, representing one-half of a $20,000 payment made by the plaintiff to his alleged paramour during the marriage. With regard to this sum, the defendant similarly provided no evidence that the plaintiff used marital property and not his separate property when making this payment (see Rosen v Rosen, 192 A.D.3d 710, 713).

  5. Rigas v. Rigas

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 2829 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)   Cited 2 times

    This determination is entitled to deference on appeal (see Lieberman-Massoni v Massoni, 215 A.D.3d at 659). Furthermore, the court's determination, in effect, that the defendant did not establish that the plaintiff wastefully dissipated marital assets was supported by the record (see Rosen v Rosen, 192 A.D.3d 710, 712). The court's distribution to the defendant of 20% of the appreciation in ARC's value from the date of marriage to the date of commencement was a provident exercise of discretion in light of the length of the parties' marriage, the defendant's lack of direct contributions to ARC, and the indirect contributions that the defendant provided in her role as a stay-at-home mother and homemaker (see Lieberman-Massoni v Massoni, 215 A.D.3d at 660; Shvalb v Rubinshtein, 204 A.D.3d at 1061-1062).

  6. D'Ambra v. D'Ambra

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 1291 (N.Y. App. Div. 2024)

    Contrary to her contention, the court providently exercised its discretion with regard to the equitable distribution of the marital residence in Flushing and the rental property in Florida (see Jones v Jones, 182 A.D.3d at 588; Arrigo v Arrigo, 38 A.D.3d 807, 807-808). Moreover, the court's determination as to the purported fraud perpetrated by the defendant-concluding, in effect, that she had wastefully dissipated marital assets, entitling the plaintiff to a credit against the defendant's equitable portion of these marital assets-was also a provident exercise of its discretion, hinging on the court's credibility assessments of the parties (see Silvers v Silvers, 197 A.D.3d at 1198; Rosen v Rosen, 192 A.D.3d 710, 712-713; Grabelsky v Handler, 127 A.D.3d 1141, 1141).

  7. M.I. v. C.I.

    2024 N.Y. Slip Op. 51065 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2024)

    The party alleging that his or her spouse has engaged in wasteful dissipation of marital assets bears the burden of proving such waste by a preponderance of the evidence. Rosen v. Rosen, 192 A.D.3d 710 (2d Dept. 2021); see also Marino v. Marino, 183 A.D.3d 813 (2d Dept. 2020); see also Epstein v. Messner, 73 A.D.3d 843 (2d Dept. 2010). The Wife failed to meet her burden to prove that the Husband wastefully dissipated marital assets.

  8. D.P. v. C.P.

    2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 51317 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2021)

    In addition, during a court appearance held on August 30, 2021, the parties stipulated on the record to apply New York law to this dispute. "'Duly executed prenuptial agreements are accorded the same presumption of legality as any other contract'" (Rosen v Rosen, 192 A.D.3d 710, 712 [2d Dept. 2021], quoting Bloomfield v Bloomfield, 97 N.Y.2d 188, 193 [2001]). "An agreement between spouses or prospective spouses should be closely scrutinized, and may be set aside upon a showing that it is unconscionable, or the result of fraud, or where it is shown to be manifestly unfair to one spouse because of overreaching on the part of the other spouse" (Bibeau v Sudick, 122 A.D.3d 652, 654-655 [2d Dept. 2014]; see Hershkowitz v Levy, 190 A.D.3d 835, 836 [2d Dept. 2021]; Taha v Elzemity, 157 A.D.3d 744, 745 [2d Dept. 2018]).