Backhaus v. Backhaus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Backhaus v. Backhaus

288 A.D.2d 411, 733 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11343

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 26, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated October 31, 2000, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant wife’s motion which was to vacate the child support provisions of the parties’ separation agreement, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated January 23, 2001, as, upon reargument, adhered to that determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 31, 2000, is dismissed on the ground that it was superseded by the order dated January 23, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 23, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The child support provisions of the parties’ separation agreement did not comply with Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h). Accordingly, those provisions were properly vacated (see, Lepore v Lepore, 276 AD2d 677, 678). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from (1) stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (LaCava, J.), dated October 31, 2000, which, inter alia, granted that branch of the defendant wife’s motion which was to vacate the child support provisions of the parties’ separation agreement, and (2) so much of an order of the same court, dated January 23, 2001, as, upon reargument, adhered to that determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated October 31, 2000, is dismissed on the ground that it was superseded by the order dated January 23, 2001, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated January 23, 2001, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the defendant is awarded one bill of costs.

The child support provisions of the parties’ separation agreement did not comply with Domestic Relations Law § 240 (1-b) (h). Accordingly, those provisions were properly vacated (see, Lepore v Lepore, 276 AD2d 677, 678). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, Smith and Crane, JJ., concur.

Backhaus v. Backhaus, 288 A.D.2d 411, 733 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11343 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

288 A.D.2d 411 (Backhaus v. Backhaus) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related