Wittman v. Wittman, 302 A.D.2d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). · Go Syfert
Search
Wittman v. Wittman, 302 A.D.2d 914 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Milligan v. Bifulco (nyappdiv, 2017-09-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Milligan v. Bifulco
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Contrary to the further contention of defendants, the court did not abuse its discretion in declining to award them sanctions or counsel fees inasmuch as the conduct of plaintiff’s attorney “was not ‘completely without merit in law’ ” (Childs v Cobado, 302 AD2d 914, 915 [2003], quoting 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [1]; see generally Vogt v Witmeyer, 212 AD2d 1013, 1014 [1995], affd 87 NY2d 998 [1996]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spath v. Storybook Child Care, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We note in any event that defendants waived their contention by stipulating to the admission of the redacted police report in evidence at trial (see generally Wittman v Wittman, 302 AD2d 914, 914 [2003]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Spath v. Storybook Child Care, Inc.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
We note in any event that defendants waived their contention by stipulating to the admission of the redacted police report in evidence at trial (see generally Wittman v Wittman, 302 AD2d 914, 914 [2003]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
John Wittman
v.
Martha Wittman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 7, 2003.
302 A.D.2d 914
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Cattaraugus County (Nenno, J.), entered October 30, 2001, which, inter alia, distributed a 13-acre parcel of land in its equitable distribution of marital property.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff contends for the first time on appeal that Supreme Court erred in distributing a 13-acre parcel of land in its equitable distribution of marital property because plaintiff does not own that parcel, and thus plaintiffs contention is not properly before us (see Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985). In any event, we conclude that plaintiff waived his contention by his stipulation at trial to include the parcel in the court’s distribution of marital property. Present— Pigott, Jr., P.J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.