Jones v. Jones

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jones v. Jones

212 A.D.2d 1037, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1917

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 3, 1995·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in failing to distribute plaintiffs non-vested New York State pension. We agree. It is well-settled that a non-vested pension is marital property subject to equitable distribution (Burns v Burns, 84 NY2d 369; Cavaretta v Cavaretta, 127 AD2d 1002). Thus, we modify the order by directing the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling defendant to one half of that portion of the New York State pension earned during the marriage (see, Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481), and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine that amount.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J.—Equitable Distribution.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in failing to distribute plaintiffs non-vested New York State pension. We agree. It is well-settled that a non-vested pension is marital property subject to equitable distribution (Burns v Burns, 84 NY2d 369; Cavaretta v Cavaretta, 127 AD2d 1002). Thus, we modify the order by directing the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order entitling defendant to one half of that portion of the New York State pension earned during the marriage (see, Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481), and we remit the matter to Supreme Court to determine that amount.

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is lacking in merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J.—Equitable Distribution.) Present—Denman, P. J., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Jones v. Jones, 212 A.D.2d 1037, 624 N.Y.S.2d 1005, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

212 A.D.2d 1037 (Jones v. Jones) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related