Reiter v. Reiter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reiter v. Reiter

39 A.D.3d 616, 835 N.Y.S.2d 240

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

DecidedApril 10, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 616 (Reiter v. Reiter) 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

Reiter v. Reiter, 39 A.D.3d 616, 835 N.Y.S.2d 240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 28, 2004, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), dated September 30, 2005, which denied her motion, inter alia, in effect, to modify certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated November 19, 2003, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“A separation agreement is a contract; as such it cannot be annulled by motion” (Darragh v Darragh, 163 AD2d 648, 649 [1990]). Thus, a challenge to a stipulation of settlement, which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce, must be made by plenary action, and not by motion (see Spataro v Spataro, 268 AD2d 467, 468 [2000]; cf. Candela v Kiel, 33 AD3d 833 [2006]). Here, the plaintiff sought to modify the stipulation of settlement by motion rather than by plenary action. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied her request for relief.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated June 28, 2004, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.), dated September 30, 2005, which denied her motion, inter alia, in effect, to modify certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement dated November 19, 2003, which was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

“A separation agreement is a contract; as such it cannot be annulled by motion” (Darragh v Darragh, 163 AD2d 648, 649 [1990]). Thus, a challenge to a stipulation of settlement, which is incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce, must be made by plenary action, and not by motion (see Spataro v Spataro, 268 AD2d 467, 468 [2000]; cf. Candela v Kiel, 33 AD3d 833 [2006]). Here, the plaintiff sought to modify the stipulation of settlement by motion rather than by plenary action. Consequently, the Supreme Court properly denied her request for relief.

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Crane, J.P., Krausman, Covello and Garni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 616, 835 N.Y.S.2d 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiter-v-reiter-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack