Altner v. Altner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Altner v. Altner

281 A.D.2d 379, 721 N.Y.S.2d 279, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 379 (Altner v. Altner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Altner v. Altner, 281 A.D.2d 379, 721 N.Y.S.2d 279, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated January 29, 1991, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated June 5, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to modify an order of the same court dated January 17, 2000, by awarding her 50% of the interest accrued on a Thrift Savings Plan.

Ordered that the order dated June 5, 2000, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated January 17, 2000, is reinstated.

The parties’ stipulation of settlement provided that the defendant was to receive 50% of the value of the plaintiff’s Thrift Savings Plan as of October 1990, and did not provide that she was to receive 50% of the interest which accumulated in the plan after that date. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in modifying its order to include an award of that interest (see, McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798; Twiss v Twiss, 245 AD2d 502). Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated January 29, 1991, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated June 5, 2000, which granted the defendant’s motion, in effect, to modify an order of the same court dated January 17, 2000, by awarding her 50% of the interest accrued on a Thrift Savings Plan.

Ordered that the order dated June 5, 2000, is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is denied, and the order dated January 17, 2000, is reinstated.

The parties’ stipulation of settlement provided that the defendant was to receive 50% of the value of the plaintiff’s Thrift Savings Plan as of October 1990, and did not provide that she was to receive 50% of the interest which accumulated in the plan after that date. Thus, the Supreme Court erred in modifying its order to include an award of that interest (see, McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798; Twiss v Twiss, 245 AD2d 502). Bracken, Acting P. J., S. Miller, McGinity and Schmidt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 379, 721 N.Y.S.2d 279, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/altner-v-altner-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack