Resnick v. Resnick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Resnick v. Resnick

52 A.D.3d 678, 858 N.Y.S.2d 900

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

DecidedJune 17, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 678 (Resnick v. Resnick) 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

Resnick v. Resnick, 52 A.D.3d 678, 858 N.Y.S.2d 900 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 25, 1994, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated April 9, 2007, which denied her motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order dated October 16, 2000, inter alia, distributing the plaintiffs share in her pension pursuant to the parties’ separation agreement, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated July 24, 2007, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 9, 2007 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated July 24, 2007, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 24, 2007 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the QDRO) which, inter alia, distributed the plaintiffs share in her pension. The QDRO at issue here was not entered in violation of 22 NYCRR 202.48 (a) (see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367 [1996]), and it was in accord with the parties’ clear and unambiguous separation agreement (see Fishler v Fishler, 2 AD3d 487, 488 [2003]). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the terms by which the parties agreed to distribute their respective pensions were neither unfair nor unconscionable (see Hardenburgh v Hardenburgh, 158 AD2d 585 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.E, Santucci, Angiolillo and McCarthy, 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 July 25, 1994, the defendant appeals (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Stack, J.), dated April 9, 2007, which denied her motion to vacate a qualified domestic relations order dated October 16, 2000, inter alia, distributing the plaintiffs share in her pension pursuant to the parties’ separation agreement, and (2), as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the same court dated July 24, 2007, as, upon reargument, adhered to the original determination.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated April 9, 2007 is dismissed, as that order was superseded by the order dated July 24, 2007, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated July 24, 2007 is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter the QDRO) which, inter alia, distributed the plaintiffs share in her pension. The QDRO at issue here was not entered in violation of 22 NYCRR 202.48 (a) (see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 367 [1996]), and it was in accord with the parties’ clear and unambiguous separation agreement (see Fishler v Fishler, 2 AD3d 487, 488 [2003]). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, the terms by which the parties agreed to distribute their respective pensions were neither unfair nor unconscionable (see Hardenburgh v Hardenburgh, 158 AD2d 585 [1990]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Fisher, J.E, Santucci, Angiolillo and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 678, 858 N.Y.S.2d 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/resnick-v-resnick-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack