Mastrogiacomo v. Mastrogiacomo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mastrogiacomo v. Mastrogiacomo

269 A.D.2d 368, 702 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1202

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 269 A.D.2d 368 (Mastrogiacomo v. Mastrogiacomo) 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

Mastrogiacomo v. Mastrogiacomo, 269 A.D.2d 368, 702 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for equitable distribution following the entry of a foreign judgment of divorce, entered November 29, 1994, in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, the plaintiff former wife appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered March 23, 1999, which is in her favor and against the defendant former husband in the principal sum of $3,918. The notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated November 18, 1998, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the amount awarded by the Supreme Court did not contradict the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement as it related to the defendant’s pension and his “Security Officer’s Supplement Pay”.

[369]*369The appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for equitable distribution following the entry of a foreign judgment of divorce, entered November 29, 1994, in the Circuit Court of Volusia County, Florida, the plaintiff former wife appeals, on the ground of inadequacy, from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), entered March 23, 1999, which is in her favor and against the defendant former husband in the principal sum of $3,918. The notice of appeal from an order of the same court dated November 18, 1998, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the amount awarded by the Supreme Court did not contradict the terms of the parties’ stipulation of settlement as it related to the defendant’s pension and his “Security Officer’s Supplement Pay”.

[369]*369The appellant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

269 A.D.2d 368, 702 N.Y.S.2d 859, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mastrogiacomo-v-mastrogiacomo-nyappdiv-2000.