Richards v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Richards v. Richards

232 A.D.2d 303, 648 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10574

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

DecidedOctober 29, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 232 A.D.2d 303 (Richards v. Richards) 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

Richards v. Richards, 232 A.D.2d 303, 648 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about May 26,1995, which, in an action for divorce, determined that plaintiff wife is not barred from equitable distribution of defendant husband’s pension and retirement plans as a result of a prenuptial agreement in which she waived any claim thereto, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We are in accord with the view expressed by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York in Hurwitz v Sher (789 F Supp 134, 137 [citing Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) § 1.401 (a)-20], affd for other reasons 982 F2d 778, 781, n 3, cert denied 508 US 912) that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 USC § 1055 [c] [2] [A] [i]) and the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC § 417 [a] [2] [A] [i]), only a spouse can waive spousal rights to employee plan benefits, that a fiancée is not a spouse, and that such rights, therefore, cannot be effectively waived in a prenuptial agreement.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.), entered on or about May 26,1995, which, in an action for divorce, determined that plaintiff wife is not barred from equitable distribution of defendant husband’s pension and retirement plans as a result of a prenuptial agreement in which she waived any claim thereto, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We are in accord with the view expressed by the United States District Court, Southern District of New York in Hurwitz v Sher (789 F Supp 134, 137 [citing Treasury Regulation (26 CFR) § 1.401 (a)-20], affd for other reasons 982 F2d 778, 781, n 3, cert denied 508 US 912) that, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 USC § 1055 [c] [2] [A] [i]) and the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC § 417 [a] [2] [A] [i]), only a spouse can waive spousal rights to employee plan benefits, that a fiancée is not a spouse, and that such rights, therefore, cannot be effectively waived in a prenuptial agreement.

We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 303, 648 N.Y.S.2d 589, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/richards-v-richards-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack