Francine L. Burns, Appellant-Respondent, v. Edward J. Burns,
Respondent-Appellant
84 N.Y.2d 369, 643 N.E.2d 80, 618 N.Y.S.2d 761 (1994).
November 1, 1994
4 No. 149 (1994 NY Int. 177) Decided November 1, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
Francine L. Burns, for appellant-respondent.
Alfred P. Kremer, for respondent-appellant.
SMITH, J.:
In this matrimonial action, the primary issue is whether the trial
court erred by limiting the wife's proof of the value of her husband's
interest in his law firm partnership to the value of his capital
account. We conclude that there was error and we modify the Appellate
Division order accordingly.
Plaintiff, Francine L. Burns, and defendant, Edward J. Burns, were
married on December 30, 1972, subsequent to defendant's achieving
partnership status, in January 1972, at Nixon, Hargrave, Devans and
Doyle, a Rochester law firm. At the time Mrs. Burns was 21 years of
age and Mr. Burns was 35. In 1975, the only child of the marriage was
born. During the marriage Mrs. Burns was primarily a homemaker. In
addition, she graduated from college, and obtained a master's degree
in business administration and a pilot's license.
In January 1987, plaintiff commenced this divorce action. Defendant,
then a managing partner at the firm, counterclaimed for the same
relief. At the commencement of trial, plaintiff sought disclosure
relating to defendant's interest in the firm and a ruling permitting
her to introduce evidence of the value of that interest. Plaintiff's
motions were denied in all respects except that defendant was
compelled to provide plaintiff with copies of the K-1 forms
(indicating defendant's share of partnership income) and defendant's
personal income tax forms. Supreme Court limited plaintiff's proof of
value to the partnership agreement provision regarding defendant's
capital account, citing the Fourth Department's "numerous
pronouncements on the (valuation) of a partner's interest in this
particular law firm."
SNIPPETS:
Francine L. Burns, Appellant-Respondent, v. Edward J. Burns, Respondent-Appellant
the primary issue is whether the trial court erred by limiting the wife's proof of the value
During the marriage Mrs. Burns was primarily a homemaker.
plaintiff commenced this divorce action.
Defendant, then a managing partner at the firm, counterclaimed for the same relief.
Defendant appealed from so much of the final divorce judgment concerning the issues of child
Plaintiff cross-appealed from the judgment, contesting the determination that defendant's
The Appellate Division modified Supreme Court's judgment, allowing defendant to claim the
The court further held that Supreme Court correctly determined the value of defendant's
Although Supreme Court limited plaintiff's proof of defendant's interest in the firm to the
In Rosenberg v Rosenberg (145 AD2d 916, 919, lv denied 74 NY2d 603), the Appellate Division
The Equitable Distribution Law broadly defines the term marital property, very narrowly
In the seminal case of O'Brien v O'Brien, this Court held that a medical license acquired
In Price v Price, we held that where separate property appreciated during the marriage, in
This Court, in Amodio v Amodio, addressed a similar situation in the context of valuing stock
Defendant concedes that he could have more of an interest in the firm's assets if it were to
Defendant contends on his cross-appeal that the trial court erred by rendering a distribution
Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified, with costs to plaintiff,
|
