Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Czajka v. Dellehunt
Upon review, we find nothing to demonstrate that the assignment here was improperly made, no indication that either the assignment or the court’s subsequent determination of the motion was affected in any manner or degree by UCS’s status as an intervenor, and no suggestion of unfairness or bias (compare Mokay v Mokay, 111 AD3d 1175, 1178 [2013]; Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 710-711 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeager v. Yeager
With respect to the mother’s contention that Family Court exhibited bias in favor of the father — who appeared pro se — by, among other things, interjecting itself into the mother’s presentation of her case, we note that “[c]ourts are obligated to ‘keep the respective parties focused upon a succinct presentation of evidence relevant to the issues to be decided [and to] . . . insure an orderly and expeditious trial’ ” (London v London, 21 AD3d 602, 602 [2005], quoting Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 710-711 [2001]; accord Matter of Bush v Bush, 74 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010], lv den…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Yeager v. Yeager
With respect to the mother’s contention that Family Court exhibited bias in favor of the father — who appeared pro se — by, among other things, interjecting itself into the mother’s presentation of her case, we note that “[c]ourts are obligated to ‘keep the respective parties focused upon a succinct presentation of evidence relevant to the issues to be decided [and to] . . . insure an orderly and expeditious trial’ ” (London v London, 21 AD3d 602, 602 [2005], quoting Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 710-711 [2001]; accord Matter of Bush v Bush, 74 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010], lv den…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sadaghiani v. Ghayoori
Given the uncontroverted nature of the expert testimony and report, Supreme Court’s valuation of the marital portion is supported by the record and cannot be said to be an abuse of discretion (see Bean v Bean, 53 AD3d 718, 722 [2008]; Farrell v Cleary-Farrell, 306 AD2d 597, 598 [2003]; Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 713 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bush v. Bush
Initially, in addressing the father’s contention that Family Court was biased in favor of the mother, who appeared pro se, “[c]ourts are obligated to ‘keep the respective parties focused upon a succinct presentation of evidence relevant to the issues to be decided [and to] . . . insure an orderly and expeditious trial’ ” (London v London, 21 AD3d 602, 602 [2005], quoting Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 710-711 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Albanese v. Albanese
The law firm was established five years before the marriage and, as such, constituted separate property (see Berliner v Berliner, 33 AD3d 745, 747 [2006], lv dismissed 8 NY3d 839 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 702 [2008]; see generally Kurtz v Kurtz, 1 AD3d 214, 215 [2003]; Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 713 [2001]; Patricia B. v Steven B., 186 AD2d 609, 610 [1992]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Cinquemani v. Lazio
Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 710-711 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
London v. London
Courts are obligated to “keep the respective parties focused upon a succinct presentation of evidence relevant to the issues to be decided [and to] . . . insure an orderly and expeditious trial” (Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 710-711 [2001]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hiatt v. Tremper-Hiatt
Here, the determination of value rested principally on the assessment of each expert’s credibility and qualifications, as well as the valuation technique employed by each (see Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 712 [2001]; Charland v Charland, 267 AD2d 698, 700-701 [1999]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Rubino v. Rubino
While there is no uniform method for fixing the value of an ongoing business for equitable distribution purposes (see Burns v Burns, supra; Amodio v Amodio, 70 NY2d 5,7 [1987]), this Court, and others, have found the excess earnings method appropriate to value an interest in a professional partnership (see Douglas v Douglas, 281 AD2d 709, 711-712 [2001]; Rice v Rice, supra; White v White, 204 AD2d 825, 826 [1994]; Finocchio v Finocchio, 162 AD2d 1044 [1990]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
General Motors Acceptance Corporation
v.
FMJ Computer Services, Inc., Doing Business as FMJ Computer Systems, and Allen Kligerman
v.
FMJ Computer Services, Inc., Doing Business as FMJ Computer Systems, and Allen Kligerman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 8, 2001.
III.
Published
Crew III, J. P.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Malone, Jr., J.), entered June 25, 1999 in Albany County, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.
When this matter was last before us, we withheld decision and remitted the matter to Supreme Court for the limited purpose of conducting a hearing as to the reasonableness of counsel fees sought by plaintiff (277 AD2d 543). The parties thereafter stipulated as to the compensable hours expended and Supreme Court entered an order in accordance with that stipulation. Accordingly, the order from which this appeal is taken is now affirmed.
Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.