Lindbloom v. Lindbloom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lindbloom v. Lindbloom

112 A.D.2d 748, 492 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56114

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 748 (Lindbloom v. Lindbloom) 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

Lindbloom v. Lindbloom, 112 A.D.2d 748, 492 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56114 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinions

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and application denied. Memorandum: Special Term improperly granted the application to modify the decretal paragraph of the 1972 judgment of divorce which directed plaintiff to name his three children as primary and irrevocable beneficiaries of all his life insurance policies. Domestic Relations Law §§ 236, 240, which permit the court to modify the support provisions of a judgment of divorce, do not authorize the court to modify a preequitable distribution provision in the judgment requiring life insurance since life insurance is outside the statutory scope of the term "support” (see, Enos v Enos, 41 AD2d 642; see also, Fersko v Fersko, 76 AD2d 854; Gordon v Gordon, 71 AD2d 911; Metz v Metz, 57 AD2d 800; contrast, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [8] [a]).

All concur, except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to modify the order, in accordance with the following memorandum.

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

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, and application denied. Memorandum: Special Term improperly granted the application to modify the decretal paragraph of the 1972 judgment of divorce which directed plaintiff to name his three children as primary and irrevocable beneficiaries of all his life insurance policies. Domestic Relations Law §§ 236, 240, which permit the court to modify the support provisions of a judgment of divorce, do not authorize the court to modify a preequitable distribution provision in the judgment requiring life insurance since life insurance is outside the statutory scope of the term "support” (see, Enos v Enos, 41 AD2d 642; see also, Fersko v Fersko, 76 AD2d 854; Gordon v Gordon, 71 AD2d 911; Metz v Metz, 57 AD2d 800; contrast, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [8] [a]).

All concur, except Doerr, J., who dissents and votes to modify the order, in accordance with the following memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 748, 492 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56114, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lindbloom-v-lindbloom-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack