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.
PETER GERMAN, PLAINTIFF–APPELLANT, v. SHEILA G. GERMAN, DEFENDANT–RESPONDENT.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reducing defendant's share of the Canandaigua National Bank Investment Account to $36,780.25 and by vacating the fifth decretal paragraph and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Ontario County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff husband appeals from a judgment of divorce that, inter alia, equitably distributed the parties' marital property. Initially, we agree with the husband that Supreme Court made a mathematical error regarding the value of the Canandaigua National Bank Investment Account, and we therefore modify the judgment by reducing defendant wife's share thereof to $36,780.25. Moreover, the court did not adequately enumerate the type or amount of the credits to which the husband is entitled as an offset against his retroactive maintenance obligations, nor did it set forth its rationale therefor, and we thus cannot intelligently review the parties' contentions with respect to those credits. We therefore further modify the judgment by vacating the fifth decretal paragraph and remit the matter to Supreme Court for clarification of the credits to which the husband is entitled (see Klauer v. Abeliovich, 149 AD3d 617, 617–618 [1st Dept 2017]; Harrington v. Harrington, 6 AD3d 799, 800 [3d Dept 2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 738 [2004]; Kaplan v. Kaplan, 192 A.D.2d 343, 343–344 [1st Dept 1993] ). We have reviewed the husband's remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit.
Mark W. Bennett
Clerk of the Court
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: CA 17–01196
Decided: February 09, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
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)