From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spector v. Spector

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 29, 1988
136 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Opinion

January 29, 1988

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Onondaga Court, Donovan, J.

Present — Dillon, P.J., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for further proceedings, in accordance with the following memorandum: The trial court erred in declaring that the Pace Arrow motor home, 1973 horse trailer, Ford tractor, five-foot Brush Hog mower attachment, manure spreader, tractor chains, plow frame, pony cart, grain and hay elevators and various animals were marital property. The undisputed proof in the record is that these items were purchased with plaintiff's separate property acquired by her as a result of gifts or inheritance. Accordingly, these items are plaintiff's separate property (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [1], [3]). Although all of these items except the Pace Arrow motor home were awarded to plaintiff as marital property, we remit to the trial court to redistribute the items constituting marital property if it determines that such a redistribution is required in order to effectuate an equitable distribution. We have reviewed plaintiff's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.


Summaries of

Spector v. Spector

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Jan 29, 1988
136 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
Case details for

Spector v. Spector

Case Details

Full title:ANN F. SPECTOR, Appellant, v. GERALD J. SPECTOR, Respondent

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

Date published: Jan 29, 1988

Citations

136 A.D.2d 939 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)

Citing Cases

Fields v. Fields

Initially, the husband met his burden of proving that the subject building was purchased as his separate…

Fields v. Fields

Plaintiff's interest was never converted into marital property. ( Allen v Allen, 263 AD2d 691; Embury v…