Dubinsky v. Dubinsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dubinsky v. Dubinsky

284 A.D.2d 494, 726 N.Y.S.2d 581, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6784

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

DecidedJune 25, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 494 (Dubinsky v. Dubinsky) 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

Dubinsky v. Dubinsky, 284 A.D.2d 494, 726 N.Y.S.2d 581, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated May 1, 2000, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Sweeny, J.), dated June 9, 2000, which denied her motion to compel the plaintiff to transfer the title of the marital residence to her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The provision in the parties’ stipulation requiring the defendant to refinance the marital residence within six months of the stipulation was an express condition precedent to the plaintiff giving the defendant sole ownership of the marital residence (see, Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690-692). The defendant failed to meet this requirement within the six-month period. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to transfer the title of the marital residence to her. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Crane, 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 a judgment dated May 1, 2000, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (Sweeny, J.), dated June 9, 2000, which denied her motion to compel the plaintiff to transfer the title of the marital residence to her.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The provision in the parties’ stipulation requiring the defendant to refinance the marital residence within six months of the stipulation was an express condition precedent to the plaintiff giving the defendant sole ownership of the marital residence (see, Oppenheimer & Co. v Oppenheim, Appel, Dixon & Co., 86 NY2d 685, 690-692). The defendant failed to meet this requirement within the six-month period. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to compel the plaintiff to transfer the title of the marital residence to her. Ritter, J. P., Florio, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 494, 726 N.Y.S.2d 581, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dubinsky-v-dubinsky-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack