At page 285 Determining entitlement to money judgment for expenses4 citing caseslated date. As a result, because the defendant adequately demonstrated that she was billed, and that she paid, a $645.15 water bill and a $3,208.48 oil bill,…
- Fitzpatrick v. Fitzpatrick, 139 A.D.3d 1002 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2016).publishedAccordingly, she was not entitled to a money judgment therefor (see Boris v Boris, 272 AD2d 284, 285 [2000]; Carella v Carella, 106 AD2d 601, 603 [1984]).
- Uriarte v. Ippolito, 54 A.D.3d 379 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).publishedThe Support Magistrate properly included in the calculation of such expenses only those sums for which the mother submitted proof of actual payment to the third-party medical providers (see Boris v Boris, 272 AD2d 284, 285 [2000]; Carella…
- Rackis v. Adelman, 52 A.D.3d 800 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2008).publishedThus there was insufficient evidence to establish her entitlement to a money judgment for the value of that property (see Schacker v Schacker, 43 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2007]; Shanon v Patterson, 38 AD3d 519, 520 [2007]; Boris v Boris, 272 AD2d…
- Lerner v. Relkin, 27 A.D.3d 745 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 2006).publishedHowever, when support obligations are to a third party, a money judgment may not be awarded absent a showing that the party seeking the judgment actually paid the sums (see Boris v Boris, 272 AD2d 284, 285 [2000]; Carella v Carella, 106 AD…
v.
Jane Boris
—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered April 21, 1998, the plaintiff former husband appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lefkowitz, J.), entered February 9, 1999, as granted the motion of the defendant former wife for leave to enter a money judgment in the sum of $8,382.13.
Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting therefrom the sum of $8,382.13, and substituting therefor the sum of $4,359.63; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs to the plaintiff.
The judgment of divorce provided that the plaintiff would be responsible for the cost of recording the deed which transferred his interest in the marital residence to the defendant. Because the deed could not be recorded without paying the real property transfer tax (see, Tax Law § 1410 [b]), the plaintiff is liable to the defendant for an additional $506 for that tax.
The Supreme Court properly determined that the parties agreed that the plaintiff was also responsible for water charges and certain oil charges for services incurred prior to a stipu[*285]lated date. As a result, because the defendant adequately demonstrated that she was billed, and that she paid, a $645.15 water bill and a $3,208.48 oil bill, she is entitled to a money judgment for those expenses (see, Carella v Carella, 106 AD2d 601). However, as the defendant presented no evidence that she received, or that she paid, additional water and fuel bills, she presented insufficient evidence to establish her entitlement to a money judgment upon the other amounts allegedly billed (see, Carella v Carella, supra). Accordingly, the defendant was only entitled to a money judgment in the sum of $4,359.63. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.