Suratt v. Suratt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Suratt v. Suratt

64 A.D.2d 651, 407 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12458

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

DecidedJuly 17, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 64 A.D.2d 651 (Suratt v. Suratt) 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

Suratt v. Suratt, 64 A.D.2d 651, 407 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12458 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 22, 1977, on the ground that they differ from the property settlement to which the parties stipulated. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting from the eleventh decretal paragraph thereof all language beginning with the words "in the event that said properties become income producing” and ending with the words "defendant is to do nothing to prevent any reasonable sale of said properties”. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. To the extent indicated herein, the judgment does not reflect the terms of the stipulation as it was negotiated in open court. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from stated portions of a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, entered April 22, 1977, on the ground that they differ from the property settlement to which the parties stipulated. Judgment modified, on the law, by deleting from the eleventh decretal paragraph thereof all language beginning with the words "in the event that said properties become income producing” and ending with the words "defendant is to do nothing to prevent any reasonable sale of said properties”. As so modified, judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements. To the extent indicated herein, the judgment does not reflect the terms of the stipulation as it was negotiated in open court. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

64 A.D.2d 651, 407 N.Y.S.2d 827, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12458, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/suratt-v-suratt-nyappdiv-1978.