Freiberg v. Freiberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Freiberg v. Freiberg

169 A.D.2d 702, 565 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424

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

DecidedJanuary 14, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 169 A.D.2d 702 (Freiberg v. Freiberg) 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

Freiberg v. Freiberg, 169 A.D.2d 702, 565 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment entered June 14, 1989, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered September 8, 1989, as ordered him to deliver to the defendant an indemnification certificate indemnifying her and holding her harmless against any and all claims asserted against her relating, inter alia, to the existing note and mortgage on the marital residence, title to which was awarded to the plaintiff.

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

We conclude that the Supreme Court did not err in requiring the plaintiff to indemnify the defendant for any future claims arising out of their indebtedness on the former marital residence. This conforms, as the Supreme Court found, with the intent of the parties notwithstanding the plaintiff’s present objections to the contrary. Brown, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, 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 entered June 14, 1989, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Burrows, J.), entered September 8, 1989, as ordered him to deliver to the defendant an indemnification certificate indemnifying her and holding her harmless against any and all claims asserted against her relating, inter alia, to the existing note and mortgage on the marital residence, title to which was awarded to the plaintiff.

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

We conclude that the Supreme Court did not err in requiring the plaintiff to indemnify the defendant for any future claims arising out of their indebtedness on the former marital residence. This conforms, as the Supreme Court found, with the intent of the parties notwithstanding the plaintiff’s present objections to the contrary. Brown, J. P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

169 A.D.2d 702, 565 N.Y.S.2d 714, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/freiberg-v-freiberg-nyappdiv-1991.