97 A.D.3d 534
N.Y. App. Div.2012先行
The user wants me to convert a legal document from a PDF/OCR source into a clean, semantic HTML format.
### Analysis of the document:
- **Case Information**:
- **Case 1 (end of)**: *Unknown vs. Unknown*. The first page starts mid-opinion: “In light of our determination...“. Per instructions for multi-opinion documents, I should skip partial content and convert only the MAIN opinion with a complete case caption.
- **Case 2 (complete)**:
- **Case Name**: Edward Harris, Appellant, v Helen M. Harris, Respondent.
- **Citation**: 948 NYS2d 343 (or 948 N.Y.S.2d 343). Looking at page numbers: 534 to 538. The reporter name is likely N.Y.S.2d.
- **Court**: Based on the names of the judges (Florio, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Cohen, JJ.), this is the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.
- **Docket**: Not explicitly listed in the snippet, but the citation provided is `[948 NYS2d 343]`.
- **Date**: The text mentions a judgment entry date of January 11, 2011, and the delay. The citation 948 N.Y.S.2d 343 is from 2012. I‘ll search for the exact date. Actually, I should stick to what‘s in the text. The text itself doesn‘t give a specific decision date, just the citation year. I will use the year from the citation if the full date isn‘t visible. Wait, the screenshot doesn‘t show the full caption block for the Harris case, just a summary line.
- **Case 3 (start of)**: Craig Jacobs, Respondent, v Henry H. Johnston, Jr., Appellant. [948 NYS2d 321]. This starts at the bottom of page 538.
### Selecting the “Main” Opinion:
The prompt says: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body. Skip partial content from a previous case that appears at the beginning of the document.”
- **Page 1**: Ends the previous case.
- **Page 1-5**: The case of *Edward Harris v. Helen M. Harris*. It has a title line, but the full “Case Information” section (court name, date, attorneys) usually found at the start of a reported case is obscured or missing in the “Edward Harris” summary line provided. However, this is the main text provided.
- **Page 5**: Starts *Craig Jacobs v. Henry H. Johnston, Jr.*
Actually, the *Edward Harris* section starts with a black block (redacted) and then “Edward Harris, Appellant, v Helen M. Harris, Respondent. [948 NYS2d 343]—“. Then there is a large redacted block. The text starts again at the bottom of page 534/top of page 535.
Looking closely at Page 1:
Top paragraph: “In light of our determination...” This is clearly the end of the previous case.
Then: “Edward Harris, Appellant, v Helen M. Harris, Respondent. [948 NYS2d 343]—” followed by a big black box.
Page 2: starts with a black box, then text “The parties were married on January 11, 1987...”
This is the opinion for *Harris v. Harris*.
I will focus on *Harris v. Harris*.
### Metadata for *Harris v. Harris*:
- **Case Name**: Edward Harris, Appellant, v Helen M. Harris, Respondent.
- **Short Name**: Harris v. Harris
- **Citation**: 948 N.Y.S.2d 343.
- **Court**: N.Y. App. Div. (derived from judges).
- **Date**: The year is 2012 (from the reporter volume).
- **Docket**: Not provided.
### Pagination:
- Page 534 (Page 1 of PDF)
- Page 535 (Page 2 of PDF)
- Page 536 (Page 3 of PDF)
- Page 537 (Page 4 of PDF)
- Page 538 (Page 5 of PDF)
### Body text processing:
- Page 534: Skip the first two paragraphs (remnant of previous case).
- Case Title: “Edward Harris, Appellant, v Helen M. Harris, Respondent. [948 NYS2d 343]—”
- There is a lot of redacted space. The actual opinion text for Harris starts on page 535: “The parties were married...” No, wait, let‘s look at the bottom of page 534. The OCR says “Edward Harris... [948 NYS2d 343]“.
- Page 535: “The parties were married on January 11, 1987...”
- Page 536: “port was excessive. The defendant correctly observes...” (rejoining “sup-port“)
- Page 537: “plaintiffs pro rata share...”
- Page 538: “to rebut the presumption...” The Harris case ends on page 538 with “Balkin, J.P., Leventhal, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.”
### Citation tagging:
- *Matter of Graby v Graby*, 87 NY2d 605 [1996] -> ``
- *Matter of Vrooman v Vrooman*, 244 AD2d 122 [1998] -> ``
- *Lauria v Lauria*, 45 AD3d 535 [2007] -> ``
- *Curatola v Curatola*, 43 AD3d 974, 976 [2007]
- *Krantz v Krantz*, 175 AD2d 865 [1991]
- *Baranek v Baranek*, 54 AD3d 789, 791 [2008]
- *Matter of Williams v Rodriguez*, 66 AD3d 914, 915 [2009]
- *Cimons v Cimons*, 53 AD3d 125, 131 [2008]
- *Brough v Brough*, 285 AD2d 913, 915 [2001]
- *Hartog v Hartog*, 85 NY2d 36, 50 [1995]
- *Duffy v Duffy*, 84 AD3d 1151, 1153 [2011]
- *Haines v Haines*, 44 AD3d 901, 903 [2007]
- *Renga v Renga*, 86 AD3d 632, 634 [2011]
- *Wacikowski v Wacikowski*, 93 AD2d 885, 885 [1983]
- *Crescimanno v Crescimanno*, 33 AD3d 649 [2006]
- *Riley v Coughtry*, 13 AD3d 703 [2004]
### Law tagging:
- Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [b] [3] -> ``
- Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [5]
- Domestic Relations Law § 240 [1-b] [c] [7]
- Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [a]
- Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [d] [2]
- Domestic Relations Law § 237 [a]
### Rejoining words:
- “pay-ments” -> “payments”
- “sup-port” -> “support”
- “secu-rity” -> “security”
- “main-tenance” -> “maintenance”
- “deter-minations” -> “determinations”
- “cir-cumstances” -> “circumstances”
- “Rod-riguez” -> “Rodriguez”
- “pro-visions” -> “provisions”
- “abil-ity” -> “ability”
- “main-tenance” -> “maintenance”
- “sep-arate” -> “separate”
- “prop-erty” -> “property”
### Note on Page 1:
The document starts with the end of a previous case. I will skip that content.
The “Harris” case starts mid-page 534.
The “Jacobs” case starts on page 538.
The instructions say: “If the document contains multiple opinions... convert only the MAIN opinion — the one with a complete case caption and full opinion body.”
The *Harris* case is the main one here.
Let‘s begin.