Vinnik v. Vinnik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vinnik v. Vinnik

193 A.D.2d 550, 598 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242

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

DecidedMay 25, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 193 A.D.2d 550 (Vinnik v. Vinnik) 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

Vinnik v. Vinnik, 193 A.D.2d 550, 598 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 30, 1991, which, inter alia, determined that defendant’s obligation to pay for plaintiffs medical expenses pursuant to a matrimonial stipulation of settlement extends to expenses for elective medical treatment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The relevant provision of the stipulation containing one [551]*551express "very limited” exception, which is plainly inapplicable herein, should not be read to include an implicit limitation that the incurred medical expenses must be reasonable or necessary. No such provision is discernible in the plain meaning of the express language. We further note that defendant, an attorney, was represented by counsel at the execution of said stipulation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Elliott Wilk, J.), entered January 30, 1991, which, inter alia, determined that defendant’s obligation to pay for plaintiffs medical expenses pursuant to a matrimonial stipulation of settlement extends to expenses for elective medical treatment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The relevant provision of the stipulation containing one [551]*551express "very limited” exception, which is plainly inapplicable herein, should not be read to include an implicit limitation that the incurred medical expenses must be reasonable or necessary. No such provision is discernible in the plain meaning of the express language. We further note that defendant, an attorney, was represented by counsel at the execution of said stipulation. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Kassal and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

193 A.D.2d 550, 598 N.Y.S.2d 943, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5242, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vinnik-v-vinnik-nyappdiv-1993.