LINDSEY KUPFERMAN NEDERLANDER, plf-res, v. ERIC NEDERLANDER, def-ap

8237. LINDSEY KUPFERMAN NEDERLANDER, plf-res, v. ERIC NEDERLANDER, def-ap — Teitler & Teitler LLP, NY (John M. Teitler of counsel), for ap — Cohen Rabin Stine Schumann LLP, New York (Bonnie E. Rabin of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about April 17, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, ordered defendant to pay 50 percent of the balances owed on the mortgages on the marital residence in the event that he is unable to refinance the mortgages or obtain extensions of the mortgage notes, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

8237. LINDSEY KUPFERMAN NEDERLANDER, plf-res, v. ERIC NEDERLANDER, def-ap — Teitler & Teitler LLP, NY (John M. Teitler of counsel), for ap — Cohen Rabin Stine Schumann LLP, New York (Bonnie E. Rabin of counsel), for res — Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Deborah A. Kaplan, J.), entered on or about April 17, 2012, which, to the extent appealed from, ordered defendant to pay 50 percent of the balances owed on the mortgages on the marital residence in the event that he is unable to refinance the mortgages or obtain extensions of the mortgage notes, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Domestic Relations Law (DRL) §234 empowers the court to “make such direction, between the parties, concerning the possession of property, as in the court’s discretion justice requires having regard to the circumstances of the case and of the respective parties.” Accordingly, pursuant to DRL §234, the court can not only order that a party turn over marital property, but also that he or she refrain from transferring or disposing of it (Leibowits v. Leibowits, 93 AD2d 535, 537 [2d Dept 1983]). The power to issue preliminary injunctions affecting property in divorce actions stems from the recognition that while spouses have no legal or beneficial interest in marital property prior to a judgment of divorce, they nevertheless have an expectancy in that property (see id. at 540-545 [O'Connor, J. concurring]). Thus, in order to protect that expectancy pending equitable distribution, to maintain the status quo, and to prevent the dissipation of marital property, the court must be able to issue orders to ensure that such marital property is protected should it later become the subject of equitable distribution (id.; Rosenshein v. Rosenshein, 211 AD2d 456, 456 [1st Dept 1995]; Drazal v. Drazal, 122 AD2d 829, 831 [2nd Dept 1986]).

LINDSEY KUPFERMAN NEDERLANDER, plf-res, v. ERIC NEDERLANDER, def-ap

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal