Newman v. Newman

269 A.D.2d 873, 703 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1847
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 16, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 269 A.D.2d 873 (Newman v. Newman) 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
Newman v. Newman, 269 A.D.2d 873, 703 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1847 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: On September 2, 1987, the parties entered into a separation agreement that was incorporated but not merged in the judgment of divorce. The separation agreement provided that plaintiffs pension would be distributed and defendant designated as an alternate payee. On March 24, 1996, Supreme Court signed a Qualified Domestic Relations Order that directed plaintiff, inter alia, to elect a plan option that provides for a survivor’s annuity benefit naming defendant as beneficiary. That was error. Because the separation agreement does not require plaintiff to elect a survivor’s annuity benefit, the court erred in directing him to do so (see, Von Burén v Von Burén, 252 AD2d 950, 951; De Gaust v De Gaust, 237 AD2d 862, 862-863). Thus, we modify the order by vacating that directive.

Defendant’s reliance on 29 USC § 1055 (c) (2) (A), that portion of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) that provides that the participant may waive the joint and survivor annuity portion of the plan if the spouse consents to that election, is misplaced. Plaintiff was not married to the [874]*874participant as of the annuity starting date (see, 29 USC § 1055 [a] [1]), nor is she the surviving spouse of a participant who died before the annuity’s starting date (see, 29 USC § 1055 [a] [2]). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Calvaruso, J. — Matrimonial.) Present — Hayes, J. P., Wisner, Pigott, Jr., Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

Related

McVeigh v. Curry
99 A.D.3d 974 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
269 A.D.2d 873, 703 N.Y.S.2d 800, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1847, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/newman-v-newman-nyappdiv-2000.