Mele v. Tinelli

93 A.D.2d 979, 461 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17885
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 1, 1983·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and action restored to calendar for Supreme Court, Oneida County. Memorandum: Family Court has no jurisdiction to enforce a separation agreement as such (see Iseman v Iseman, 48 AD2d 809, app dsmd 37 NY2d 918; “Manheim” v “Manheim”, 200 Misc 802, 806; Besharov, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 29A, 1976-1982, Supp Pamph, Family Ct Act, § 411, p 71). Accordingly, Trial Term erred in transferring to Family Court plaintiff’s plenary action on the contract for the recovery of arrears under a separation agreement. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, McKennan, J. — refer to Family Court.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Doerr, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

Mele v. Tinelli, 93 A.D.2d 979, 461 N.Y.S.2d 744, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17885 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

93 A.D.2d 979 (Mele v. Tinelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Tighe-Duck v. Duck
135 Misc. 2d 631 (NYC Family Court, 1987)