Schildkraut v. Schildkraut

240 A.D.2d 649, 659 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6821
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 23, 1997
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 649 (Schildkraut v. Schildkraut) 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
Schildkraut v. Schildkraut, 240 A.D.2d 649, 659 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6821 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancil[650]*650lary relief, the defendant wife appeals from, an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated June 20, 1996, which (1) granted the plaintiff husband’s motion, inter alia, for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the extent of directing her to return to him the proceeds of his retirement account, and (2) denied her cross motion for (a) attorney’s fees, (b) reimbursement of expenses associated with the sale of the marital premises, and (c) sequestration of the husband’s retirement account as security for his maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

By decision and order of this Court dated January 16, 1996, a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, granting the husband a divorce was reversed and his complaint was dismissed (see, Schildkraut v Schildkraut, 223 AD 2d 585). While the appeal was pending, however, the husband transferred to the wife, under the equitable distribution portion of the divorce judgment, the proceeds of his retirement account. Following reversal of the judgment, the Supreme Court granted the husband’s motion for an order directing the return of those funds. We now affirm.

Contrary to the wife’s contention, the court was not without authority, due to the dismissal of the original divorce complaint, to direct the return of those funds (see, CPLR 5015 [d]; Chase Manhattan Bank v Kassam, 167 Misc 2d 933) and its determination in this regard was not erroneous (cf., Carroll v Miller, 213 AD2d 694).

The wife’s remaining contentions are without merit. Mangano, P. J., Copertino, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

ANDERSON, GAIL A. v. ANDERSON, JOSEPH M.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016
Anderson v. Anderson
145 A.D.3d 1538 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
240 A.D.2d 649, 659 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6821, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schildkraut-v-schildkraut-nyappdiv-1997.