Goldman v. Goldman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Goldman

162 A.D.2d 836, 559 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7495

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

DecidedJune 21, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 836 (Goldman v. Goldman) 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

Goldman v. Goldman, 162 A.D.2d 836, 559 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7495 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Reilly, Jr., J.), entered January 11, 1989, which, inter alia, granted Elaine E. Goldman’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, to direct Norman Goldman to pay arrearages due pursuant to the terms of a separation agree[837]*837ment incorporated but not merged into the parties’ judgment of divorce.

We adopt the reasoning underlying the decision and supplemental decision of Family Court Judge Vincent J. Reilly, Jr. Implicit in Family Court’s determination is a finding that Elaine E. Goldman did not waive her right to alimony arrears. We read the record, however, as warranting an explicit finding, and we so find, that she did not voluntarily and intentionally waive her right to alimony arrears accruing under the twelfth paragraph of the separation agreement.

Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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

Yesawich, Jr., J.

Appeal from an order and judgment of the Family Court of Schenectady County (Reilly, Jr., J.), entered January 11, 1989, which, inter alia, granted Elaine E. Goldman’s application, in a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 4, to direct Norman Goldman to pay arrearages due pursuant to the terms of a separation agree[837]*837ment incorporated but not merged into the parties’ judgment of divorce.

We adopt the reasoning underlying the decision and supplemental decision of Family Court Judge Vincent J. Reilly, Jr. Implicit in Family Court’s determination is a finding that Elaine E. Goldman did not waive her right to alimony arrears. We read the record, however, as warranting an explicit finding, and we so find, that she did not voluntarily and intentionally waive her right to alimony arrears accruing under the twelfth paragraph of the separation agreement.

Order and judgment affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Yesawich, Jr., and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 836, 559 N.Y.S.2d 185, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7495, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-goldman-nyappdiv-1990.