Plaintiff-husband, on appeal, claims that the Court failed to award him separate property credit with respect to the 64th Street marital Property. In 1981, the parties’ first divorce settlement required the defendant-wife to convey her interest in a 68th Street Property to the plaintiff. When the parties remarried in 1985, the 68th Street Property remained under the husband’s sole ownership. The 68th Street Property was subsequently sold in 1987 and $125,000 of the proceeds was used to purchase the 64th Street marital Property in question here. Appellate Court determined that the Supreme Court erred in not recognizing the $125,000 as husband’s separate property and providing him a proper credit. Subsequent to the first divorce, the 68th Street Property became the husband’s property and even when the parties remarried in 1985, it remained the husband’s separate property; therefore any proceeds used from the sale of that property would create a valid separate property claim.

LINK TO DECISION