Nopper v. Nopper

New York Court of Appeals

Nopper v. Nopper

409 N.E.2d 1355, 50 N.Y.2d 1009, 431 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2536

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 1, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 409 N.E.2d 1355 (Nopper v. Nopper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nopper v. Nopper, 409 N.E.2d 1355, 50 N.Y.2d 1009, 431 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2536 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In these circumstances, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that plaintiff may maintain an action on the parties’ separation agreement. Defendant, in his answer, did not dispute the validity of the agreement, and therefore is deemed to have admitted it (CPLR 3018, subd [a]). He may not now be heard to complain that the contract is no longer in existence. In so ruling, we intimate no view on the question whether defendant could collaterally attack the clause in the divorce *1011 decree which provided for survival of the separation agreement.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

In these circumstances, the Appellate Division correctly concluded that plaintiff may maintain an action on the parties’ separation agreement. Defendant, in his answer, did not dispute the validity of the agreement, and therefore is deemed to have admitted it (CPLR 3018, subd [a]). He may not now be heard to complain that the contract is no longer in existence. In so ruling, we intimate no view on the question whether defendant could collaterally attack the clause in the divorce *1011 decree which provided for survival of the separation agreement.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

409 N.E.2d 1355, 50 N.Y.2d 1009, 431 N.Y.S.2d 681, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2536, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nopper-v-nopper-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack