Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Kathleen Asser Weslock, Plaintiff–Respondent–Appellant, v. Solomon Asser, Defendant–Appellant–Respondent.
_
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered September 23, 2014, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, denied defendant husband's motion for 50% of plaintiff's relocation benefit, for 50% of the value of the parties' truck, and for counsel fees, and denied plaintiff wife's motion for an assessment of the parties' Pennsylvania property and for counsel fees, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The parties' settlement agreement does not provide that defendant is entitled to 50% of the value of plaintiff's relocation benefit, and there is no basis for looking beyond the four corners of the agreement (see McCoy v. Feinman, 99 N.Y.2d 295, 302 [2002] ).
Supreme Court properly awarded plaintiff sole ownership of the parties' truck, regardless of whether title to the truck was in both parties' names. The settlement agreement does not provide for any disposition of the parties' automobiles, the truck originally belonged to plaintiff's father, and defendant retained the parties' other four automobiles.
There is no basis for ordering an additional neutral appraisal of the parties' Pennsylvania property. In accordance with the settlement agreement, three brokers selected by the parties valued the property. There is no evidence that any of them was improperly influenced or given misinformation about the property. Thus, pursuant to the agreement, the buyout price should be determined by averaging those three valuations.
Neither party has prevailed in this proceeding to an extent that warrants an award of counsel fees under the settlement agreement (see generally Domestic Relations Law § 237[a] ).
_
CLERK
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 1498 5
Decided: April 30, 2015
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)