Kroll v. Fruchter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kroll v. Fruchter

69 A.D.3d 904, 892 N.Y.2d 796

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 69 A.D.3d 904 (Kroll v. Fruchter) 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

Kroll v. Fruchter, 69 A.D.3d 904, 892 N.Y.2d 796 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment on his counterclaim for a conversion divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (6). A stipulation entered into by the parties in April 2004 is not a separation agreement within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 170 (6) for the purpose of awarding the defendant a conversion divorce, as it contains affirmative language that its purpose was to settle certain issues pendente lite (see Sint v Sint, 225 AD2d 606, 607 [1996]; Frasca v Frasca, 213 AD2d 589, 590 [1995]; Stone v Stone, 45 AD2d 967, 968 [1974]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit (cf. O’Halloran v O’Halloran, 58 AD3d 704, 706 [2009]). Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant’s motion which was for summary judgment on his counterclaim for a conversion divorce pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 170 (6). A stipulation entered into by the parties in April 2004 is not a separation agreement within the meaning of Domestic Relations Law § 170 (6) for the purpose of awarding the defendant a conversion divorce, as it contains affirmative language that its purpose was to settle certain issues pendente lite (see Sint v Sint, 225 AD2d 606, 607 [1996]; Frasca v Frasca, 213 AD2d 589, 590 [1995]; Stone v Stone, 45 AD2d 967, 968 [1974]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit (cf. O’Halloran v O’Halloran, 58 AD3d 704, 706 [2009]). Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Belen and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 904, 892 N.Y.2d 796, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kroll-v-fruchter-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack