Salvati v. Salvati

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Salvati v. Salvati

208 A.D.2d 516, 627 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9382

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

DecidedOctober 3, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 208 A.D.2d 516 (Salvati v. Salvati) 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

Salvati v. Salvati, 208 A.D.2d 516, 627 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9382 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated April 18, 1984, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated November 19, 1992, which granted the plaintiffs motion to resettle the judgment of divorce dated April 18, 1984, to provide for the distribution of the defendant’s pension in accordance with the requirements of the defendant’s pension administrators and which denied the defendant’s cross motion to amend the judgment to define the plaintiff’s share of the defendant’s pension benefits as those accruing only as of April 18, 1984.

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

While the court, upon resettlement, cannot change the substance of the judgment, it does have the power to make clerical amendments to correct provisions clearly intended by the parties (see, CPLR 5019; Haven Assocs. v Donro Realty Corp., 149 AD2d 667). Here, the plaintiff proposed only a technical amendment in order to allow her to collect the pension funds she was entitled to. Therefore, we find that the [517]*517Supreme Court properly amended the judgment. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 April 18, 1984, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated November 19, 1992, which granted the plaintiffs motion to resettle the judgment of divorce dated April 18, 1984, to provide for the distribution of the defendant’s pension in accordance with the requirements of the defendant’s pension administrators and which denied the defendant’s cross motion to amend the judgment to define the plaintiff’s share of the defendant’s pension benefits as those accruing only as of April 18, 1984.

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

While the court, upon resettlement, cannot change the substance of the judgment, it does have the power to make clerical amendments to correct provisions clearly intended by the parties (see, CPLR 5019; Haven Assocs. v Donro Realty Corp., 149 AD2d 667). Here, the plaintiff proposed only a technical amendment in order to allow her to collect the pension funds she was entitled to. Therefore, we find that the [517]*517Supreme Court properly amended the judgment. Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 516, 627 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9382, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/salvati-v-salvati-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack