DeSalvo v. DeSalvo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DeSalvo v. DeSalvo

203 A.D.2d 318, 612 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3704

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

DecidedApril 11, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.2d 318 (DeSalvo v. DeSalvo) 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

DeSalvo v. DeSalvo, 203 A.D.2d 318, 612 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 20, 1992, as (1) denied his motion, inter alia, to dismiss "the issues brought before the court by the order dated January 29, 1985, and the order to show cause dated August 27, 1984, seeking performance of the parties’ separation agreement dated March 5, 1979,” on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the separation agreement, and (2) denied his separate motion, inter alia, to direct the defendant to elect "between her inconsistent remedies, one of which seeks to set aside a separation agreement and the other of which seeks to specifically enforce said agreement”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff’s motions. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, 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 appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated May 20, 1992, as (1) denied his motion, inter alia, to dismiss "the issues brought before the court by the order dated January 29, 1985, and the order to show cause dated August 27, 1984, seeking performance of the parties’ separation agreement dated March 5, 1979,” on the ground that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction of the separation agreement, and (2) denied his separate motion, inter alia, to direct the defendant to elect "between her inconsistent remedies, one of which seeks to set aside a separation agreement and the other of which seeks to specifically enforce said agreement”.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances presented here, the Supreme Court correctly denied the plaintiff’s motions. Thompson, J. P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 318, 612 N.Y.S.2d 922, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/desalvo-v-desalvo-nyappdiv-1994.