Ramsperger v. Ramsperger

120 A.D.2d 940, 502 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57028
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 23, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 940 (Ramsperger v. Ramsperger) 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
Ramsperger v. Ramsperger, 120 A.D.2d 940, 502 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unan[941]*941imously reversed, on the law, without costs, and plaintiffs motion for summary judgment granted. Memorandum: In our view, Special Term erred in denying plaintiffs motion for summary judgment dismissing defendant’s claim for equitable distribution of his pension rights. A separation agreement dated September 26, 1980 provides that the parties release each other from any claims for division of both real and personal property under the Equitable Distribution Law (L 1980, ch 281, §9), other than as "set forth” therein, and expressly states their intention that "there shall be as between them only such rights and obligations as are specifically provided for in this Agreement”. Defendant contends only that her rights in the pension were not extinguished by the general release in the agreement and makes no claim that the terms of the agreement were unfair and unreasonable at the time the agreement was made or that the agreement is unconscionable (see, Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]). The separation agreement is binding on the parties; it provided for the disposition of their property and was intended as a complete and comprehensive settlement of their property rights. Plaintiff should retain title to his pension, which was neither mentioned in nor distributed pursuant to the instrument (see, Franz v Franz, 107 AD2d 1060). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Contiguglia, J. — partial summary judgment.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Green and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Related

Cole-Hatchard v. Cole-Hatchard
294 A.D.2d 529 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
March v. March
233 A.D.2d 371 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
120 A.D.2d 940, 502 N.Y.S.2d 858, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 57028, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ramsperger-v-ramsperger-nyappdiv-1986.