Kaye v. Kaye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kaye v. Kaye

38 A.D.2d 753, 329 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487

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

DecidedJanuary 31, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 38 A.D.2d 753 (Kaye v. Kaye) 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

Kaye v. Kaye, 38 A.D.2d 753, 329 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover upon a separation agreement, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 15, 1971, which denied her motion (1) to dismiss the defendant’s affirmative defense and counterclaim for reformation of the agreement and (2) for summary judgment, with an assessment of damages on the second cause of action in the complaint. Order reversed, on [754]*754the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion, section 466 (subd. [e], par. [ii]) of the Family Court Act does not authorize the reformation of a separation agreement which was incorporated in a foreign divorce decree. (See, also, Rehill v. Rehill, 306 N. Y. 126; Farber v. Farber, 25 A D 2d 850.) Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover upon a separation agreement, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered July 15, 1971, which denied her motion (1) to dismiss the defendant’s affirmative defense and counterclaim for reformation of the agreement and (2) for summary judgment, with an assessment of damages on the second cause of action in the complaint. Order reversed, on [754]*754the law, with $10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted. In our opinion, section 466 (subd. [e], par. [ii]) of the Family Court Act does not authorize the reformation of a separation agreement which was incorporated in a foreign divorce decree. (See, also, Rehill v. Rehill, 306 N. Y. 126; Farber v. Farber, 25 A D 2d 850.) Rabin, P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Gulotta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.2d 753, 329 N.Y.S.2d 648, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaye-v-kaye-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack