Ross v. RossRoss v. Ross
Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as directed a hearing is dismissed; and it is further,
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed, with costs.
The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant‘s cross motion insofar as it sought to direct the plaintiff to pay for certain expenses incurred in connection with the parties’ real property, since the defendant failed to “submit competent documentary proof supporting the claimed expenses or their necessity” (Soles v Soles, 41 AD3d 904, 906 [2007]; see Cohen-Davidson v Davidson, 291 AD2d 474, 476 [2002]).
The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.
Dillon, J.P., Florio, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.