Kubick v. Kubick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Kubick v. Kubick

261 A.D.2d 300, 691 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5748

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

DecidedMay 25, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 300 (Kubick v. Kubick) 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

Kubick v. Kubick, 261 A.D.2d 300, 691 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about April 19, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied, in part, defendant’s motion to resettle the parties’ judgment of divorce entered February 13, 1998, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from the denial of a motion to resettle the decretal paragraphs of a judgment (Hatsis v Hatsis, 122 AD2d 111). Were we to consider the matter on the merits, we would affirm. The parties’ stipulation of settlement entered upon the record expressly stated, “[T]he holidays, and holiday recess schedule will be submitted with the judgment for divorce”. The schedule prepared by plaintiff wife substantially complies with the outline placed upon the record and the proposed schedule that the court directed the parties to incorporate by order dated December 19, 1997, and does not vary or contradict either the express terms of the stipulation or the intention of the parties as outlined therein. The balance of the provisions is likewise in accordance with language of the stipulation as set forth upon the record, and, accordingly, we find no merit to defendant’s arguments on appeal. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Eileen Bransten, J.), entered on or about April 19, 1998, which, to the extent appealed from, denied, in part, defendant’s motion to resettle the parties’ judgment of divorce entered February 13, 1998, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

No appeal lies from the denial of a motion to resettle the decretal paragraphs of a judgment (Hatsis v Hatsis, 122 AD2d 111). Were we to consider the matter on the merits, we would affirm. The parties’ stipulation of settlement entered upon the record expressly stated, “[T]he holidays, and holiday recess schedule will be submitted with the judgment for divorce”. The schedule prepared by plaintiff wife substantially complies with the outline placed upon the record and the proposed schedule that the court directed the parties to incorporate by order dated December 19, 1997, and does not vary or contradict either the express terms of the stipulation or the intention of the parties as outlined therein. The balance of the provisions is likewise in accordance with language of the stipulation as set forth upon the record, and, accordingly, we find no merit to defendant’s arguments on appeal. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Rosenberger, Williams, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 300, 691 N.Y.S.2d 407, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kubick-v-kubick-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack