Goldenberg v. Goldenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldenberg v. Goldenberg

187 A.D.2d 484, 590 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12764

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 187 A.D.2d 484 (Goldenberg v. Goldenberg) 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

Goldenberg v. Goldenberg, 187 A.D.2d 484, 590 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 3, 1979, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated June 26, 1990, as denied that branch of her motion which was to modify a stipulation of settlement, and the defendant husband cross-appeals from so much of the same order as directed him to prepare and file a current net worth statement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s application to vacate or modify the parties’ agreement concerning exclu[485]*485sive occupancy of the marital residence (see, Bossom v Bossom, 141 AD2d 794; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, 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 December 3, 1979, the plaintiff wife appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Dunn, J.), dated June 26, 1990, as denied that branch of her motion which was to modify a stipulation of settlement, and the defendant husband cross-appeals from so much of the same order as directed him to prepare and file a current net worth statement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the cross appeal is dismissed as abandoned, without costs or disbursements.

The court did not err in denying the plaintiff’s application to vacate or modify the parties’ agreement concerning exclu[485]*485sive occupancy of the marital residence (see, Bossom v Bossom, 141 AD2d 794; Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 484, 590 N.Y.S.2d 741, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldenberg-v-goldenberg-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack