You are here: / / Domestic Relations Order Must Conform to Stipulation of Settlement

Domestic Relations Order Must Conform to Stipulation of Settlement

The Second Department noted that a domestic relations order must conform to any relevant stipulation.  If it does not conform, it must be amended to conform:

“Where a [domestic relations order]; is inconsistent with the provisions of a stipulation or judgment of divorce, courts possess the authority to amend the [domestic relations order]; to accurately reflect the provisions of the stipulation pertaining to the pension benefits” … . “A proper [domestic relations order]; obtained pursuant to a stipulation of settlement can convey only those rights to which the parties stipulated as a basis for the judgment”… . Mondshein v Mondshein, 2014 NY Slip Op 03806, 2nd Dept 5-28-14

 

You might also like
Employer Must Show Workers’ Compensation Board Approved a Settlement with the Plaintiff In Order to Be Entitled to Summary Judgment Dismissing Plaintiff ‘s Subsequent Damages Suit (Plaintiff-Employee Is Not Entitled to Both Workers’ Compensation Benefits and Damages But an Unapproved Settlement Is Not Binding)
DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE MENTAL-HEALTH TREATMENT OF A PEDOPHILE PRIEST WERE NOT PROTECTED BY PRIEST-PENITENT, PHYSICIAN-PATIENT OR PSYCHOLOGIST-PATIENT PRIVILEGES; THE NAMES OF OTHER CHILDREN ABUSED BY THE PRIEST ALLEGED TO HAVE ABUSED PLAINTIFF ARE DISCOVERABLE (SECOND DEPT).
People v Peque, Which Requires that a Defendant Be Informed of the Immigration Consequences of a Guilty Plea, Is Not Applied Retroactively
ONCE SUPREME COURT FOUND DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL INEFFECTIVE IT WAS REQUIRED TO VACATE THE CONVICTION; DEFENDANT MOVED TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION BECAUSE HE REJECTED A PLEA OFFER WITHOUT BEING INFORMED HE COULD BE SUBJECT TO LIFE IN PRISON AS A PERSISTENT FELONY OFFENDER AFTER TRIAL; SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE REINSTATED THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE AFTER FINDING DEFENDANT RECEIVED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS INTERSECTION ACCIDENT CASE, WHETHER DEFENDANT STOPPED BEFORE ENTERING PLAINTIFF’S RIGHT OF WAY WAS NOT DISPOSITIVE.
SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER THE SECOND TRIAL SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN HIGHER THAN THE SENTENCE IMPOSED AFTER THE FIRST TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO AMEND THE COMPLAINT TO ADD ALLEGATIONS SUPPORTING “PIERCING THE CORPORATE VEIL” SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
TREE CUTTING NOT COVERED, PILE OF DEBRIS NOT A STRUCTURE, OUT OF POSSESSION LANDLORD NOT LIABLE UNDER LABOR LAW 200.

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

Probationary Employee Fired in Bad Faith for Union Work—Supreme Court... Father’s New York Custody Petition Not Preempted by Dominican Republic...