Portnof v. Portnof

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Portnof v. Portnof

253 A.D.2d 675, 677 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 22, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 253 A.D.2d 675 (Portnof v. Portnof) 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

Portnof v. Portnof, 253 A.D.2d 675, 677 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiffs brief, denied so much of his cross motion as sought to direct defendant to use only “participating providers” under plaintiffs health insurance plan, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the parties’ divorce judgment does not require defendant to use only “participating providers” under plaintiffs health insurance plan. The foregoing is not to be understood as holding that plaintiff is required to pay for any unreimbursed expenses incurred by defendant in using a nonparticipating provider (see, Warshaw v Warshaw, 243 AD2d 394), this being the issue that was raised on defendant’s main motion but held in abeyance by the IAS Court. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Sherry Klein Heitler, J.), entered on or about September 16, 1997, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by plaintiffs brief, denied so much of his cross motion as sought to direct defendant to use only “participating providers” under plaintiffs health insurance plan, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the parties’ divorce judgment does not require defendant to use only “participating providers” under plaintiffs health insurance plan. The foregoing is not to be understood as holding that plaintiff is required to pay for any unreimbursed expenses incurred by defendant in using a nonparticipating provider (see, Warshaw v Warshaw, 243 AD2d 394), this being the issue that was raised on defendant’s main motion but held in abeyance by the IAS Court. Concur — Tom, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andrias and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 675, 677 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9607, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/portnof-v-portnof-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack