You are here: / / AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN...

AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined that an ambiguity in the stipulation of settlement involving the supplemental employee retirement plan (SERP) should have been resolved by the language of the qualified domestic relations order (QDRO):

Courts must interpret matrimonial stipulations of settlement using the standards of contract interpretation … . A QDRO can only convey rights agreed upon by the parties in their underlying stipulation of settlement… . Courts “cannot reform an agreement to conform to what it thinks is proper, if the parties have not assented to such a reformation” … . Here, however, the parties assented to a reformation of their stipulation of settlement in a manner that resolves the ambiguity of its SERP [supplemental employee retirement plan] language by mutually consenting to the language of the QDRO that was entered by the Supreme Court … . The QDRO states that the parties “consent[ed] to the submission of th[e] order,” and it was signed by the attorneys representing both parties. The QDRO directed the use of a standard Majauskas formula for dividing, inter alia, the SERP. While the terms of a QDRO must ordinarily yield to the terms of an underlying matrimonial stipulation of settlement or judgment … , here, the circumstances warrant otherwise as the QDRO resolved an ambiguity in the language of the underlying stipulation, and further, was submitted for entry upon the consent of both parties. * * *

Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have interpreted the stipulation of settlement in light of the 2002 QDRO, which granted to the plaintiff a one-half share, as per the formula set forth therein, in the subject 401(k) account and SERP as of the date of the retirement of the defendant … . Palaia v Palaia, 2018 NY Slip Op 01076, Second Dept 2-14-18

FAMILY LAW (AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QUDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (FAMILY LAW, AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QUDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/SUPPLEMENTAL EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT PLAN (SERP) (FAMILY LAW, AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QUDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))/QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO) (FAMILY LAW, AMBIGUITY IN THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS RESOLVED BY LANGUAGE IN THE QUALIFIED DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (QDRO), THE LANGUAGE IN THE QUDRO SHOULD HAVE CONTROLLED THE INTERPRETATION OF THE STIPULATION (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
FAMILY COURT HAD THE POWER TO RETROACTIVELY DISMISS A NEGLECT PETITION AND IMPOSE A SUSPENDED JUDGMENT AFTER MOTHER DEMONSTRATED THE ABILITY TO CARE FOR HER CHILDREN (FIRST DEPT).
Glass Plate in Wall Under Demolition Was Not a “Falling Object” within the Meaning of Labor Law 240 (1)
NONPARTY SUBPOENA PROPERLY QUASHED BECAUSE IT DID NOT PROVIDE THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED DISCLOSURE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT WAS UNCONSCIONABLE AND WHETHER PLAINTIFF EXECUTED THE STIPULATION UNDER DURESS (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH A COURT HAS THE DISCRETIONARY “INTERESTS OF JUSTICE” POWER TO VACATE ITS OWN ORDER, THAT POWER SHOULD ONLY BE EXERCISED IN UNIQUE OR UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES NOT PRESENT HERE (SECOND DEPT).
Anders Brief Rejected
Evidence of Shooting Committed by Defendant’s Twin Brother Was Highly Prejudicial and Had No Bearing Upon Defendant’s Guilt—Murder Conviction Reversed
LIABILITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND ON THE PART OF THE CORPORATE PRINCIPALS WHO COMMITTED OPPRESSIVE ACTS AGAINST PLAINTIFF SHAREHOLDER.
THE DOCUMENTS SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY WERE PROTECTED BY THE COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE, AN EXCEPTION TO THE USUAL RULE RE: WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (SECOND 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

NEGLECT STEMMING FROM MOTHER’S MENTAL ILLNESS NOT PROVEN, FAMILY COURT... SUPREME COURT, SUA SPONTE, SET ASIDE AN IN-COURT STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN...