Rabinovich v. Shevchenko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabinovich v. Shevchenko

37 A.D.3d 802, 829 N.Y.S.2d 918

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

DecidedFebruary 27, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 802 (Rabinovich v. Shevchenko) 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

Rabinovich v. Shevchenko, 37 A.D.3d 802, 829 N.Y.S.2d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated November 1, 2005, as amended by an order dated November 17, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

To resolve a prior Family Court spousal support proceeding, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, which provided a specific schedule whereby the plaintiff was to provide support to the defendant. By its terms, the stipulation of settlement terminated upon the earlier of either November 30, 2005, or the effective date of any order of the Supreme Court or Family Court modifying its terms. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendant, inter alia, for a divorce.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the stipulation of settlement did not preclude the Supreme Court from granting the defendant’s motion for pendente lite relief (see Mercer v Mercer, 4 AD3d 508, 510 [2004]). In any event, we note that the plaintiffs pendente lite obligations set forth in the order appealed from, as amended, began on December 1, 2005, when the stipulation of settlement was no longer in effect. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for pendente lite relief. Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rebolini, J.), dated November 1, 2005, as amended by an order dated November 17, 2005, which granted the defendant’s motion for pendente lite relief.

Ordered that the order, as amended, is affirmed, with costs.

To resolve a prior Family Court spousal support proceeding, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, which provided a specific schedule whereby the plaintiff was to provide support to the defendant. By its terms, the stipulation of settlement terminated upon the earlier of either November 30, 2005, or the effective date of any order of the Supreme Court or Family Court modifying its terms. The plaintiff subsequently commenced this action against the defendant, inter alia, for a divorce.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the stipulation of settlement did not preclude the Supreme Court from granting the defendant’s motion for pendente lite relief (see Mercer v Mercer, 4 AD3d 508, 510 [2004]). In any event, we note that the plaintiffs pendente lite obligations set forth in the order appealed from, as amended, began on December 1, 2005, when the stipulation of settlement was no longer in effect. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the defendant’s motion for pendente lite relief. Prudenti, P.J., Krausman, Dillon and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 802, 829 N.Y.S.2d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabinovich-v-shevchenko-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack