See v. See

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · Family Law

Family LawDivorceEquitable DistributionValuation Date of Marital Propertymatrimonial actiondiscontinued divorce actionvaluation datemarital property

Facts

The parties had previously been involved in a matrimonial action for divorce and ancillary relief that was later discontinued. A new action seeking the same relief was subsequently commenced. In the present action, the husband moved to have his business valued as of May 5, 1993, the date the prior action was commenced, rather than the commencement date of the current action. The record contained no evidence that, after the prior action was commenced, the parties reconciled and continued to receive the benefits of the marital relationship.

Issue

When a prior divorce action seeking divorce and ancillary relief was discontinued and a later action for the same relief was commenced, should the valuation date of the husband's business be the commencement date of the first action or the commencement date of the later action? More specifically, did the Supreme Court properly set the valuation date at the filing of the prior discontinued action?

Rule

Where a prior matrimonial action seeking divorce and ancillary relief has been withdrawn or discontinued and a new action for the same relief is later commenced, the court applies a sui generis inquiry to determine whether the commencement date of the first action or that of the subsequent action should control as the date when marital property ceased to accrue. In making that determination, the absence of evidence that the parties reconciled and continued to receive the benefits of the marital relationship after the prior action commenced supports use of the earlier commencement date.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Buffalo, Nina Patel filed for divorce and ancillary relief from Aaron Patel in 2016, but the action was later discontinued during settlement talks. In 2021, Nina filed a new action seeking the same relief, and the main disputed asset is Aaron's closely held landscaping company. The record shows the spouses lived apart after 2016 and contains no evidence that they reconciled or resumed the benefits of married life.

Which valuation date is the court most likely to select for Aaron's business?

Explanation. When a prior matrimonial action seeking divorce and ancillary relief was withdrawn or discontinued and a later action seeks the same relief, the court does not apply an automatic rule. It undertakes a sui generis inquiry to decide whether the first or later commencement date should control as the point when marital property ceased to accrue. The absence of evidence that the parties reconciled and continued to receive the benefits of the marital relationship after the first filing supports use of the earlier commencement date.