McPheeters v. McPheeters
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
—Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly confirmed the Referee’s report, which took into account the factors set forth in Domestic Relations *969Law § 236 (B) (5) (d) (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [5] [g]; see also, Cooper v Cooper, 217 AD2d 904, 905; Gorzalkowski v Gorzalkowski, 190 AD2d 1067). The court did not abuse its discretion in the equitable distribution of marital property and properly ordered that the parties’ pensions be divided using the Majauskas formula (see, Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481). “It is well established that…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Ciesinski v. Town of AuroraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Majauskas v. MajauskasNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Butler v. ButlerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Munson v. MunsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Prasinos v. PrasinosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Niland v. NilandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002
- Kelly v. KellyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Smith v. WinterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Wise v. McCallaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2005
- Turner v. TurnerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.