Leone v. Green Chimneys Child.'s Servs., Inc., 284 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
Search
Leone v. Green Chimneys Child.'s Servs., Inc., 284 A.D.2d 309 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
8 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Scher v. Scher (nyappdiv, 2012-01-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Scher v. Scher
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Where separate property has been commingled with marital property, there is a presumption that the commingled funds constitute marital property (see Massimi v Massimi, 35 AD3d 400, 402 [2006]; Wade v Steinfeld, 15 AD3d 390, 391 [2005]; Lynch v King, 284 AD2d 309, 310 [2001]; Judson v Judson, 255 AD2d 656, 657 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Arnold v. Arnold
N.Y. App. Div. · 2003 · confidence medium
However, as evidenced by the deed contained in the record on appeal, plaintiff and her sister thereafter conveyed the bulk of the inherited lands to plaintiff and defendant as tenants by the entirety and, in so doing, plaintiff changed the character of the property from separate to marital (see Lynch v King, 284 AD2d 309, 310 [2001]; cf. Sherman v Sherman, 304 AD2d 744 [2003]).
discussed Cited "see" DeGroat v. DeGroat
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · signal: see · confidence high
Under these circumstances, the Supreme Court did not err in determining that the entire sum representing the proceeds of the stock options, valued as of the date of trial, constituted marital property (id. at 402; see Lynch v King, 284 AD2d 309, 310 [2001]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Darlene Leone
v.
Green Chimneys Children's Services, Inc.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 4, 2001.
284 A.D.2d 309
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5643
Published

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered May 25, 2000, which granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint on the ground that the plaintiff did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d).

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient admissible evidence to rebut the defendants’ initial showing that she did not sustain a serious injury within the meaning of Insurance Law § 5102 (d). Thus, summary judgment was properly granted to the defendants (see, Licari v Elliott, 57 NY2d 230). Santucci, J. P., S. Miller, Luciano, Feuerstein and Adams, JJ., concur.