Aranoff v. Aranoff

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aranoff v. Aranoff

256 A.D.2d 372, 682 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13451

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 372 (Aranoff v. Aranoff) 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

Aranoff v. Aranoff, 256 A.D.2d 372, 682 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by foreign decree dated February 17, 1993, the defendant appeals from a Qualified Domestic Relations Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated October 15, 1997, which, inter alia, directed his pension fund to pay the plaintiff 55% of all benefits payable under his annuity contracts as enforcement of his child support obligations.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal from the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and leave to appeal is granted {see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is valid {see, Internal Revenue Code [26 USC] § 414 [p]; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 USC § 1056 [d]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, 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 foreign decree dated February 17, 1993, the defendant appeals from a Qualified Domestic Relations Order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated October 15, 1997, which, inter alia, directed his pension fund to pay the plaintiff 55% of all benefits payable under his annuity contracts as enforcement of his child support obligations.

Ordered that on the Court’s own motion, the appellant’s notice of appeal is treated as an application for leave to appeal from the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and leave to appeal is granted {see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Qualified Domestic Relations Order is valid {see, Internal Revenue Code [26 USC] § 414 [p]; Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 USC § 1056 [d]). Rosenblatt, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 372, 682 N.Y.S.2d 622, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aranoff-v-aranoff-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack