Anonymous v. Anonymous

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Anonymous v. Anonymous

224 A.D.2d 263, 637 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1064

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 224 A.D.2d 263 (Anonymous v. Anonymous) 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

Anonymous v. Anonymous, 224 A.D.2d 263, 637 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1064 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered October 7, 1994 which, in an action for divorce, denied defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to designate her as the beneficiary of the death benefits of his pension plans, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to discontinue the action without prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendant failed to establish any prejudice would result were the discontinuance to be allowed without the relief on which she would condition it. And having determined that the action should be discontinued, the court had no action before it in which to issue a temporary order directing plaintiff to designate defendant the beneficiary of his death benefits. We note that on argument plaintiff’s counsel stipulated that plaintiff’s designation of his estate as beneficiary of his New York State pension would not be changed until further order of the court or agreement of the parties. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered October 7, 1994 which, in an action for divorce, denied defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to designate her as the beneficiary of the death benefits of his pension plans, and granted plaintiff’s cross motion to discontinue the action without prejudice, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that defendant failed to establish any prejudice would result were the discontinuance to be allowed without the relief on which she would condition it. And having determined that the action should be discontinued, the court had no action before it in which to issue a temporary order directing plaintiff to designate defendant the beneficiary of his death benefits. We note that on argument plaintiff’s counsel stipulated that plaintiff’s designation of his estate as beneficiary of his New York State pension would not be changed until further order of the court or agreement of the parties. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rubin, Ross and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 263, 637 N.Y.S.2d 718, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1064, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anonymous-v-anonymous-nyappdiv-1996.