Cage v. Cage

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cage v. Cage

81 A.D.2d 854, 440 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11528

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

DecidedMay 11, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 854 (Cage v. Cage) 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

Cage v. Cage, 81 A.D.2d 854, 440 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11528 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action in which defendant had been granted a judgment of divorce, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 18, 1980, which denied his motion to resettle the judgment with respect to certain personal property awarded to plaintiff by the judgment. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and matter remitted to Special Term for resettlement. The wording of the judgment relative to distribution of personalty is ambiguous because it includes certain unspecified personal property owned by the plaintiff prior to the marriage. Since Special Term’s decision contains a reference to “other assorted furniture,” resettlement will clarify whether the court intended to permit plaintiff to obtain any items in addition to those specified with particularity in the judgment. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action in which defendant had been granted a judgment of divorce, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated July 18, 1980, which denied his motion to resettle the judgment with respect to certain personal property awarded to plaintiff by the judgment. Order reversed, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and matter remitted to Special Term for resettlement. The wording of the judgment relative to distribution of personalty is ambiguous because it includes certain unspecified personal property owned by the plaintiff prior to the marriage. Since Special Term’s decision contains a reference to “other assorted furniture,” resettlement will clarify whether the court intended to permit plaintiff to obtain any items in addition to those specified with particularity in the judgment. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 854, 440 N.Y.S.2d 568, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cage-v-cage-nyappdiv-1981.