You are here: / / Failure to Pay Pension Benefits to Wife Pursuant to Divorce Was an Action...
,

Failure to Pay Pension Benefits to Wife Pursuant to Divorce Was an Action which Accrued Anew Each Time a Payment Was Missed for Statute of Limitations Purposes—Plaintiff Could Sue Only for Missed Payments Going Back Six Years from When Payments Began

Pursuant to a divorce, plaintiff was entitled to a share of her husband’s pension benefits starting in 1991.  Plaintiff did not start receiving the payments until 2005.  She did not bring an action on the unpaid benefits between 1991 and 2005 until 2010.  The Fourth Department determined that a cause of action for the unpaid benefits accrued anew when each payment was missed.  Because the statute of limitations is six years, the plaintiff could sue only for the unpaid benefits which accrued during the six years prior to when her action was started in 2010.  Bielecki v Bielecki, CA 12-01393, 264, 4th Dept, 5-3-13

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A DEFECTIVE RAILING ON A SECOND-STORY BALCONY); HOWEVER, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TRIGGERED AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
Parking Lot Not “Suitable” for Recreational Use Pursuant to General Obligations Law 9-103—Statutory Assumption of Risk Re: Riding a Bicycle in the Parking Lot Not Available
People’s Failure, at a Reconstruction Hearing, to Prove Defendant Was Present for the Sandoval Hearing Required Reversal and a New Trial
POLICE HAD NO REASON TO DETAIN DEFENDANT-PASSENGER AFTER TRAFFIC TICKET ISSUED TO DRIVER, STATEMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT REQUIRED A NEW TRIAL AS WELL.
Under the Unambiguous Terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Plaintiff, a Retiree Who Was No Longer a Union Member, Was Not Subject to the Grievance-Filing Requirement and Could Sue Directly
Complaint Did Not State a Cause of Action Against Mechanic Who Inspected Defendant’s Car—Plaintiff Did Not Allege the Mechanic Created or Exacerbated Any Dangerous Condition—Therefore the Complaint Did Not Allege the Mechanic Owed Plaintiff a Duty of Care
TREE-CUTTING IS A COVERED ACTIVITY PURSUANT TO LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6) IF DONE IN CONNECTION WITH A COVERED CONSTRUCTION PROJECT (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MAJORITY HELD THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS INSIDE THE STOPPED VEHICLE RAISED A REASONABLE SUSPICION DEFENDANT WAS ARMED, JUSTIFYING A PAT DOWN SEARCH; THE DISSENT ARGUED THE DEFENDANT’S ACTIONS WERE EQUIVOCAL AND INNOCUOUS (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Court Could Not Require Parolee to Submit Psychological and Medical Proof In... Denial of Motion for Severance Upheld—Defendant Suing for Two Types of...