Fineberg v. Fineberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fineberg v. Fineberg

136 A.D.2d 931, 524 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1444

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.2d 931 (Fineberg v. Fineberg) 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

Fineberg v. Fineberg, 136 A.D.2d 931, 524 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1444 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and defendant’s motion denied, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff commenced an action to vacate certain oral and written stipulations of settlement and to vacate the divorce decree into which the stipulations were [932]*932incorporated, but not merged. Special Term erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment because issue had not been joined (CPLR 3212 [a]; Woodworth v Woodworth, 135 AD2d 1143; Republic Natl. Bank v Luis Winston, Inc., 107 AD2d 581, 582; Miller v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 723, 724; cf., Duell v Hancock, 83 AD2d 762, 763). Our determination is without prejudice to defendant’s renewal of the motion after service of an answer. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, and defendant’s motion denied, in accordance with the following memorandum: Plaintiff commenced an action to vacate certain oral and written stipulations of settlement and to vacate the divorce decree into which the stipulations were [932]*932incorporated, but not merged. Special Term erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment because issue had not been joined (CPLR 3212 [a]; Woodworth v Woodworth, 135 AD2d 1143; Republic Natl. Bank v Luis Winston, Inc., 107 AD2d 581, 582; Miller v Nationwide Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 92 AD2d 723, 724; cf., Duell v Hancock, 83 AD2d 762, 763). Our determination is without prejudice to defendant’s renewal of the motion after service of an answer. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Miller, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Green, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 931, 524 N.Y.S.2d 906, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1444, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fineberg-v-fineberg-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack