Olivo v. Olivo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Olivo v. Olivo

193 A.D.2d 1067, 600 N.Y.S.2d 648

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 28, 1993·No. Appeal No. 1·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly determined that the enhanced portion of the retirement benefits payable to defendant under Kodak’s Resource Redeployment and Retirement Plan is separate property of defendant (see, Tanchick v Tanchick, 190 AD2d 1076; Biddlecom v Biddlecom, 113 AD2d 66). Neither the parties’ separation agreement nor the stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order provide that the enhanced benefits would be subject to equitable distribution (see, Biddlecom v Biddlecom, supra, at 67). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Equitable Distribution.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: The court properly determined that the enhanced portion of the retirement benefits payable to defendant under Kodak’s Resource Redeployment and Retirement Plan is separate property of defendant (see, Tanchick v Tanchick, 190 AD2d 1076; Biddlecom v Biddlecom, 113 AD2d 66). Neither the parties’ separation agreement nor the stipulated Qualified Domestic Relations Order provide that the enhanced benefits would be subject to equitable distribution (see, Biddlecom v Biddlecom, supra, at 67). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Rosenbloom, J.—Equitable Distribution.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Green, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Olivo v. Olivo, 193 A.D.2d 1067, 600 N.Y.S.2d 648 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

193 A.D.2d 1067 (Olivo v. Olivo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related