Reiter v. Reiter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reiter v. Reiter

48 A.D.3d 661, 851 N.Y.S.2d 874

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.3d 661 (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, 48 A.D.3d 661, 851 N.Y.S.2d 874 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In anaction to rescind provisions of a settlement agreement dated November 19, 2003, which was incorporated but not merged in the judgment of divorce entered June 30, 2004, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Baltin, J), dated October 30, 2006, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment rescinding the child support and maintenance provisions of the agreement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment rescinding the child support and maintenance provisions of the parties’ settlement agreement (see generally McMains v McMains, 15 NY2d 283, 291 [1965]; Woods v Bard, 285 NY 11 [1941]; Rodgers v Rodgers, 235 NY 408 [1923]; Butler v Butler, 206 App Div 214 [1923]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Carni, JJ., concur.

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

In anaction to rescind provisions of a settlement agreement dated November 19, 2003, which was incorporated but not merged in the judgment of divorce entered June 30, 2004, the defendant appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Baltin, J), dated October 30, 2006, as denied that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment rescinding the child support and maintenance provisions of the agreement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying that branch of her motion which was for summary judgment rescinding the child support and maintenance provisions of the parties’ settlement agreement (see generally McMains v McMains, 15 NY2d 283, 291 [1965]; Woods v Bard, 285 NY 11 [1941]; Rodgers v Rodgers, 235 NY 408 [1923]; Butler v Butler, 206 App Div 214 [1923]). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Covello and Carni, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.3d 661, 851 N.Y.S.2d 874, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reiter-v-reiter-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack