Stern v. Stern

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stern v. Stern

80 A.D.2d 850, 439 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 850 (Stern v. Stern) 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

Stern v. Stern, 80 A.D.2d 850, 439 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover moneys due pursuant to a separation agreement, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 27, 1980, as (1) granted plaintiff summary judgment with respect to the first and second causes of action, (2) directed that judgment be entered thereon, and (3) denied the portion of defendant’s cross motion which sought to modify the separation agreement. (A judgment has been entered upon the grant of summary judgment.) Order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision granting plaintiff summary judgment on the second cause of action and substituting a provision denying summary judgment on the second cause of action. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The judgment is modified accordingly. There are issues of fact involved in the second cause of action as to the amount expended by plaintiff for maintenance and repairs of the marital home, and whether various items and services for which plaintiff seeks pro rata reimbursement were included in the terms “necessary maintenance” and “repairs”. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover moneys due pursuant to a separation agreement, defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated March 27, 1980, as (1) granted plaintiff summary judgment with respect to the first and second causes of action, (2) directed that judgment be entered thereon, and (3) denied the portion of defendant’s cross motion which sought to modify the separation agreement. (A judgment has been entered upon the grant of summary judgment.) Order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision granting plaintiff summary judgment on the second cause of action and substituting a provision denying summary judgment on the second cause of action. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. The judgment is modified accordingly. There are issues of fact involved in the second cause of action as to the amount expended by plaintiff for maintenance and repairs of the marital home, and whether various items and services for which plaintiff seeks pro rata reimbursement were included in the terms “necessary maintenance” and “repairs”. Hopkins, J. P., Damiani, Lazer and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 850, 439 N.Y.S.2d 301, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stern-v-stern-nyappdiv-1981.