Sokolsky v. Sokolsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sokolsky v. Sokolsky

59 A.D.2d 600, 398 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13412

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 59 A.D.2d 600 (Sokolsky v. Sokolsky) 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

Sokolsky v. Sokolsky, 59 A.D.2d 600, 398 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13412 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Family Court, New York County, entered on or about December 20, 1976, directing the respondent-appellant to pay $1,000 per month as and for alimony and support and, further, modifying visitation provisions provided in a divorce decree, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, and the petitioner-respondent’s attorney’s request to be relieved from further representation of her granted. The alimony and support, upon which Family Court presumed to rule, were provided for in a divorce decree incorporating a separation agreement expressly stating that all questions concerning them should be referred to arbitration. Therefore the parties should have been relegated to an arbitration proceeding (Matter ofExercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 NY2d 329; Matter of Robinson, 296 NY 778), with any ambiguity in the agreement left to the arbitrators (Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer., 37 NY2d 91). The existence of a Supreme Court judgment setting forth visitation rights precludes the Family Court’s ruling thereon (Family [601]*601Ct Act, § 447; see, also, Matter of Bolatin v Bolatin, 29 AD2d 534, affd 22 NY2d 794). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

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

Order, Family Court, New York County, entered on or about December 20, 1976, directing the respondent-appellant to pay $1,000 per month as and for alimony and support and, further, modifying visitation provisions provided in a divorce decree, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the petition dismissed, without costs and without disbursements, and the petitioner-respondent’s attorney’s request to be relieved from further representation of her granted. The alimony and support, upon which Family Court presumed to rule, were provided for in a divorce decree incorporating a separation agreement expressly stating that all questions concerning them should be referred to arbitration. Therefore the parties should have been relegated to an arbitration proceeding (Matter ofExercycle Corp. [Maratta], 9 NY2d 329; Matter of Robinson, 296 NY 778), with any ambiguity in the agreement left to the arbitrators (Matter of Nationwide Gen. Ins. Co. v Investors Ins. Co. of Amer., 37 NY2d 91). The existence of a Supreme Court judgment setting forth visitation rights precludes the Family Court’s ruling thereon (Family [601]*601Ct Act, § 447; see, also, Matter of Bolatin v Bolatin, 29 AD2d 534, affd 22 NY2d 794). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Birns, Markewich and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 600, 398 N.Y.S.2d 161, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13412, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sokolsky-v-sokolsky-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack