Gasparek v. Gasparek

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gasparek v. Gasparek

230 A.D.2d 710, 646 N.Y.S.2d 52

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

DecidedAugust 5, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 230 A.D.2d 710 (Gasparek v. Gasparek) 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

Gasparek v. Gasparek, 230 A.D.2d 710, 646 N.Y.S.2d 52 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 26, 1983, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated April 18,1994, which denied his motion for entry of a money judgment for damages allegedly resulting from the former wife’s delay in complying with a provision of a stipulation of settlement incorporated but not merged in the divorce judgment which required her to remove her name as a beneficiary of the former husband’s pension.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the former wife did not default in the payment of a sum of money, the former husband was not entitled to enter a money judgment against her (see, Domestic Relations Law § 244).

Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Hart, 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 judgment dated July 26, 1983, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Segal, J.), dated April 18,1994, which denied his motion for entry of a money judgment for damages allegedly resulting from the former wife’s delay in complying with a provision of a stipulation of settlement incorporated but not merged in the divorce judgment which required her to remove her name as a beneficiary of the former husband’s pension.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Since the former wife did not default in the payment of a sum of money, the former husband was not entitled to enter a money judgment against her (see, Domestic Relations Law § 244).

Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

230 A.D.2d 710, 646 N.Y.S.2d 52, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gasparek-v-gasparek-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack