From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bogdan v. Bogdan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 1999
260 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

April 19, 1999

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hersh, J.H.O.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified by adding thereto provisions that (1) the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the sum of $6,983.80 representing his obligation for one-half of the amount which the parties stipulated on the record constituted the marital debt, and (2) the plaintiff and the defendant shall each pay $125.50 to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance as provided in the same stipulation; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.

It is well settled that expenses incurred prior to the commencement of a divorce action constitute marital debt and should be equally shared by the parties ( see, Gelb v. Brown, 163 A.D.2d 189). At a hearing, the parties stipulated to various amounts of marital debt. Under the circumstances of this case, the debt should have been shared equally. Since the plaintiff has paid the defendant's share of this marital debt, the defendant must reimburse the plaintiff for that amount. Furthermore, each party is required to pay an equal share of the money still owed to the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions lack merit.

Altman, J. P., Friedmann, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Bogdan v. Bogdan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 19, 1999
260 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Bogdan v. Bogdan

Case Details

Full title:GENEVIEVE M. BOGDAN, Appellant, v. WALTER BOGDAN, Respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 19, 1999

Citations

260 A.D.2d 521 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
688 N.Y.S.2d 255

Citing Cases

Scher v. Scher

The Supreme Court erred in finding that the interest in Green Fields East Holding, LLC (hereinafter Green…

Gillman v. Gillman

Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in directing…