Martino v. Martino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martino v. Martino

103 A.D.2d 842, 478 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19487

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

DecidedJuly 30, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 103 A.D.2d 842 (Martino v. Martino) 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

Martino v. Martino, 103 A.D.2d 842, 478 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated June 2,1983, as directed that the period of accounting for the operation of the marital premises referred to in the judgment of divorce shall be from January, 1981 to July 26, 1982. H Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and it is directed that the period of accounting for the operation of the marital premises shall be from April 26,1982 (the date of the stipulation of settlement) to July 26,1982. H It was error for Special Term, under the guise of interpreting its own order, which incorporated the terms of a clear and unambiguous stipulation of settlement, spread upon the record in open court, to alter or modify the provisions of said stipulation, absent the consent of both parties (Vranick v Vranick, 41 AD2d 663). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Boyers, and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— In a matrimonial action, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Duberstein, J.), dated June 2,1983, as directed that the period of accounting for the operation of the marital premises referred to in the judgment of divorce shall be from January, 1981 to July 26, 1982. H Order reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and it is directed that the period of accounting for the operation of the marital premises shall be from April 26,1982 (the date of the stipulation of settlement) to July 26,1982. H It was error for Special Term, under the guise of interpreting its own order, which incorporated the terms of a clear and unambiguous stipulation of settlement, spread upon the record in open court, to alter or modify the provisions of said stipulation, absent the consent of both parties (Vranick v Vranick, 41 AD2d 663). Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Boyers, and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.2d 842, 478 N.Y.S.2d 74, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martino-v-martino-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack