Partlow v. Kolupa

509 N.E.2d 327, 69 N.Y.2d 927, 516 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16458
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedApril 28, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 509 N.E.2d 327 (Partlow v. Kolupa) 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
Partlow v. Kolupa, 509 N.E.2d 327, 69 N.Y.2d 927, 516 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16458 (N.Y. 1987).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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

This is an action for conversion in which plaintiff seeks to [928]*928recover silverware, or compensatory damages, and punitive damages from her former husband. She originally asserted the claim in the divorce action against him but in consideration of her husband withdrawing his answer and demand for a jury trial, and as part of the resolution of several other disputed matters, plaintiff executed a written stipulation with defendant in which she withdrew the conversion claim. The withdrawal was "without prejudice to the assertion by plaintiff of such claim and without prejudice to the assertion by defendant of any defense he may make against such claim of plaintiff in a subsequent trial upon the issues of 'equitable distribution’ should it be determined by the Court that such claim of plaintiff is properly maintainable at such trial.” After execution of the stipulation, defendant withdrew his answer, the court granted plaintiff a divorce by default and the parties proceeded to trial on the issue of equitable distribution to settle their property rights.

It is evident that the stipulation preserved plaintiff’s right to litigate the conversion claim only if she asserted it at the equitable distribution phase of the divorce action. Inasmuch as she did not present it to the court at that time, the present action is barred.

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Alexander taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Related

Krol v. Yager-Krol
145 A.D.3d 1249 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Davey v. Dolan
453 F. Supp. 2d 749 (S.D. New York, 2006)
Xiao Yang Chen v. Fischer
12 A.D.3d 43 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Lynch v. Benjamin
1 A.D.3d 39 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance
674 A.2d 1290 (Supreme Court of Connecticut, 1996)
Shelar v. Shelar
910 F. Supp. 1307 (N.D. Ohio, 1995)
Delahunty v. Mass. Mutual Life Ins., No. Cv92-0328486-S (Dec. 7, 1994)
1994 Conn. Super. Ct. 12349 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1994)
Hutchings v. Hutchings, No. 054449s (Feb. 22, 1993)
1993 Conn. Super. Ct. 1871 (Connecticut Superior Court, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
509 N.E.2d 327, 69 N.Y.2d 927, 516 N.Y.S.2d 632, 1987 N.Y. LEXIS 16458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/partlow-v-kolupa-ny-1987.