Edib v. Edib

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Edib v. Edib

63 A.D.2d 643, 404 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507

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

DecidedMay 1, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 63 A.D.2d 643 (Edib v. Edib) 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

Edib v. Edib, 63 A.D.2d 643, 404 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which plaintiff was previously granted a judgment of divorce, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 7, 1977, which denied her motion to (1) strike that part of the judgment of divorce which, pursuant to the terms of a stipulation, restricts the sale of the former marital residence by her until June 5, 1988 and (2) declare that the restriction is extinguished and unenforceable. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, application granted, and the restriction is declared void and unenforceable. The defendant transferred his interest in the marital residence to the plaintiff pursuant to the separation agreement between the parties. Under a later stipulation, the plaintiff agreed not to sell the property until June 5, 1988. That personal convenant was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce and recorded on the face of the deed. When financial difficulties subsequently arose between the parties, the plaintiff sought relief from the restriction. The covenant against sale of the plaintiffs property is illegal as violative of the common-law rule against the direct restraint of alienation and is therefore void (see Wiesenthal v Young, 280 App Div 590). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Hawkins, J., not voting.

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

In a matrimonial action in which plaintiff was previously granted a judgment of divorce, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, dated April 7, 1977, which denied her motion to (1) strike that part of the judgment of divorce which, pursuant to the terms of a stipulation, restricts the sale of the former marital residence by her until June 5, 1988 and (2) declare that the restriction is extinguished and unenforceable. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, application granted, and the restriction is declared void and unenforceable. The defendant transferred his interest in the marital residence to the plaintiff pursuant to the separation agreement between the parties. Under a later stipulation, the plaintiff agreed not to sell the property until June 5, 1988. That personal convenant was incorporated, but not merged, into the judgment of divorce and recorded on the face of the deed. When financial difficulties subsequently arose between the parties, the plaintiff sought relief from the restriction. The covenant against sale of the plaintiffs property is illegal as violative of the common-law rule against the direct restraint of alienation and is therefore void (see Wiesenthal v Young, 280 App Div 590). Mollen, P. J., Hopkins, Titone and Shapiro, JJ., concur; Hawkins, J., not voting.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.2d 643, 404 N.Y.S.2d 375, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11507, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/edib-v-edib-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack