Divorce Lawyers New York - Recent Family Law Decisons (2)
Recent Family Law Decisons (2)
Fraud
Where a wife alleged that her husband was guilty of fraud and that he had secretly started new companies after the date of the judgment of dissolution to hide marital assets from her, the court was not required to admit evidence on the value of any assets of the new company, which was formed subsequent to the date of the judgment of dissolution, absent a specific order from the reviewing court pursuant to subsection (h) of this section or a showing of fraud or a sham transaction.
Evidence Held Insufficient
Evidence was insufficient for the determination of the value of husband’s law firm where the only evidence introduced was that of four corporate assets, two vehicles, the accounts receivable, and the husband’s interest in the office building which he had assigned to the firm.
Credibility
Where plaintiff “puffed” her valuation based upon defendant’s alleged “puffed” valuation, the trial court was at liberty to accept the valuation of the property to be as plaintiff had represented it to the court even if defendant was more financially able to develop the real estate.
Exactness of Evaluation
While specific findings of value may be required if they are necessary to provide a basis for the trial and reviewing courts to determine the propriety of the property division, an apportionment in kind need not be accompanied by an exact evaluation.
Expert Testimony
Where in action for dissolution of marriage and for allocation of the marital property, expert witness was a certified public accountant with 15 years of auditing and accounting experience, had both formal academic training and practical experience in the area of accounting, and had on several occasions valued medical practices for purposes of dissolution of marriage proceedings, although he had not testified in those proceedings at the time of the trial, argument that specific experience or training in valuation was necessary was without merit because valuation is merely a small part of the larger discipline of accounting, and trial court’s determination that witness was qualified as an expert and that his limited experience in valuation proceedings went only to the weight of his testimony was not an abuse of discretion.
