Home/New York Court of Appeals/De Jose v. De Jose

De Jose v. De Jose

488 N.E.2d 837, 66 N.Y.2d 804, 497 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17934
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedNovember 12, 1985
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 488 N.E.2d 837 (De Jose v. De Jose) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
De Jose v. De Jose, 488 N.E.2d 837, 66 N.Y.2d 804, 497 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17934 (N.Y. 1985).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Prior to the effective date of the Equitable Distribution Law (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B], eff July 19, 1980), the parties entered into a separation agreement which was intended to be a complete settlement of their property rights. Such an agreement is governed by the former statutory provisions and decisional law, and equitable distribution is not available (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]). Consequently, whether the "opting out” provisions of the Equitable Distribution Law were complied with is irrelevant.

We have not reviewed the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the Supreme Court order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the settlement. That order is nonfinal and is not brought up for review by CPLR 5501 (a) (1) on this appeal (Cohen and [807]*807Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 36, at 144-146; § 78, at 337-338 [rev ed]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judges Meyer and Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Acito v. Acito
23 Misc. 3d 832 (New York Supreme Court, 2009)
Pretterhofer v. Pretterhofer
37 A.D.3d 446 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Rubenfeld v. Rubenfeld
279 A.D.2d 153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Roos v. Roos
206 A.D.2d 293 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
DeJose v. DeJose
639 N.E.2d 407 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
Shoretz v. Shoretz
186 A.D.2d 370 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Caramante v. Caramante
172 A.D.2d 1016 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Stimmel v. Stimmel
163 A.D.2d 381 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Cohen v. Seletsky
142 A.D.2d 111 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Smith v. Smith
129 A.D.2d 575 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Cantlin v. Cantlin
126 A.D.2d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Marinello v. Marinello
125 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Frys v. Frys
120 A.D.2d 975 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
488 N.E.2d 837, 66 N.Y.2d 804, 497 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/de-jose-v-de-jose-ny-1985.