Rupert v. Rupert

764 N.E.2d 954, 97 N.Y.2d 661, 738 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 3750
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 13, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 764 N.E.2d 954 (Rupert v. Rupert) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Rupert v. Rupert, 764 N.E.2d 954, 97 N.Y.2d 661, 738 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 3750 (N.Y. 2001).

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The appeal should be dismissed, without costs.

Defendant husband appeals to this Court from the final judgment of Supreme Court to bring up for review a prior nonfinal Appellate Division order (245 AD2d 1139 [1997]), which held an antenuptial agreement and two other documents amending that agreement valid and enforceable as one integrated agreement and remitted the case to Supreme Court, indicating that “further proceedings before the court should include the [663]*663identity and value of the property obtained by the parties after the marriage” (id., at 1142). Upon remand from the Appellate Division, Supreme Court resolved the financial issues, and further determined that the case could have been decided on a theory of promissory estoppel with the same result, thereby recognizing an alternative basis to enforce the terms contained in the agreement and amending documents.

On an appeal taken to this Court from a final judgment of Supreme Court to bring up for review a prior nonfinal Appellate Division order, the Appellate Division order must necessarily affect the final judgment (see, CPLR 5602 [a] [1] [ii]). Inasmuch as the final judgment of Supreme Court rests on an alternative basis for the result reached by the Appellate Division, the Appellate Division’s nonfinal order does not necessarily affect the final determination. Accordingly, the appeal must be dismissed. We note that the dismissal of this appeal does not constitute an adjudication on the merits or an affirmance of the Appellate Division order.

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

Related

Brady v. Brady
2020 NY Slip Op 793 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
In re City of Syracuse Industrial Development Agency
32 A.D.3d 1332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
West-Herr Ford, Inc. v. Tax Appeals Tribunal
16 A.D.3d 727 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Gaglia v. Nash
8 A.D.3d 992 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Western New York Land Conservancy, Inc. v. Town of Amherst
4 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
Rupert v. Rupert
764 N.E.2d 954 (New York Court of Appeals, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
764 N.E.2d 954, 97 N.Y.2d 661, 738 N.Y.S.2d 654, 2001 N.Y. LEXIS 3750, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rupert-v-rupert-ny-2001.