Rossi v. Rossi

4 Citing cases

  1. Cuprill v. Citywide Towing & Auto Repair Servs.

    2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 2729 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)

    Contrary to plaintiff's argument, defendants did not seek, and the motion court did not order, vacatur of the note of issue. Trial courts are authorized, as a matter of discretion, to permit post-note of issue discovery without vacating the note of issue, so long as neither party will be prejudiced (see Pickering v Union 15 Rest. Corp., 107 AD3d 450 [1st Dept 2013]), and we perceive no prejudice here (see e.g. Dominguez v Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth., 163 AD2d 376, 376-377 [1st Dept 1990]). Counsel's affirmations submitted with the initial motion and on reply, when viewed together, provided sufficient detail to comply with 22 NYCRR 202.7(c) (Loeb v Assara N.Y. I L.P., 118 AD3d 457, 457-458 [1st Dept 2014]).

  2. Spera v. Spera

    71 A.D.3d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 41 times

    "In fashioning an award of equitable distribution, the Supreme Court is required to discuss the statutory factors it relied upon in distributing marital property" ( Milnes v Milnes, 50 AD3d 750, 750; see Payne v Payne, 4 AD3d 512, 513-514). Nonetheless, "[w]here it is evident that the Supreme Court considered all relevant factors and the reasons for its decision are articulated, the court is not required to specifically cite to and analyze each statutory factor" ( Milnes v Milnes, 50 AD3d at 750, citing O'Brien v O'Brien, 66 NY2d 576, 589). When, as here, the Supreme Court fails to set forth the statutory factors it considered, and it is not evident from the record that the court considered all the relevant factors, this Court may, in the interest of judicial economy, exercise its power to determine the equitable distribution of the parties' marital property ( see Fanelli v Fanelli, 215 AD2d 718, 720; Rossi v Rossi, 163 AD2d 376, 377), "where the record upon which the trial court would base such a determination is fully before it" ( Payne v Payne, 4 AD3d at 514). Under the instant circumstances, we therefore turn to the plaintiffs contentions on appeal regarding equitable distribution, rather than holding the appeal in abeyance and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court for compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (g) ( see Lounsbury v Lounsbury, 300 AD2d 812, 817; Chasin v Chasin, 182 AD2d 862, 864).

  3. Fanelli v. Fanelli

    215 A.D.2d 718 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 34 times

    In most instances where there has been a failure to so comply with the mandates of the statute, we remit the matter to the trial court and require the Trial Judge to set forth the factors considered in making its determination with respect to equitable distribution. The failure of the Trial Judge to take the time to properly follow the statute results in a totally unnecessary and completely unsatisfactory delay in the ultimate resolution of the parties' matrimonial action. Nevertheless, under the special circumstances of this case and in the interest of judicial economy, we are exercising our power to make determinations as to the equitable distribution of the parties' marital property (see, Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481, 493-494; Rossi v Rossi, 163 A.D.2d 376). At the time of trial, the wife, who was 28 years old, was earning about $20,000 from her part-time job and the husband, who was 30 years old, was earning about $31,000. The parties were married for about four and one-half years at the time they separated, and there was no evidence that either party had any other assets or income.

  4. Galtieri v. Kelly

    2005 N.Y. Slip Op. 30560 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2005)

    He claim that the accident disability pension is being subjected to equitable distribution, which is not permitted under New York law, and that the PPF is arbitrarily, and illegally, attaching his accident disability pension and distributing a significant portion of it to Kane as alimony. It has long been recognized in New York that disability pensions, such as those provided by Social Security, the Veterans Administration, and the PPF are considered as income substitutes, measured by lost earnings, and while not subject to equitable distribution, they are calculable as part of the recipient's gross income, and subject to attachment under appropriate circumstances (see Graby v Graby, 87 NY2d 605, 610 [1996]; Family Ct Act § 413 [1] [b] [5]; Rossi v Rossi, 163 AD2d 376, 377 [2nd Dept 1990]). It is undisputed that the New Jersey courts had personal jurisdiction over Galtieri and Kane, and the power to adjudicate their divorce and to divide and distribute the marital assets.