You are here: / / DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT...
,

DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the stipulation of settlement in this divorce action controlled, and a domestic relations order (DRO) which did not conform to the stipulation could not be enforced:

“A stipulation of settlement that has been incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce is a contract subject to principles of contract construction and interpretation” … . “A court may not write into a contract conditions the parties did not insert or, under the guise of construction, add or excise terms, and it may not construe the language in such a way as would distort the apparent meaning” … . “A domestic relations order entered pursuant to a stipulation of settlement can convey only those rights to which the parties stipulated as a basis for the judgment'” … .

Contrary to the plaintiff’s contention, the formula set forth in her proposed DRO conflicts with the stipulation of settlement, which provided for a “fifty/fifty division of all pension benefits accumulated from the date of this marriage … through the date of service of the summons and complaint … ,” and that the plaintiff is “to be the recipient of 50 percent of any and all benefits payable to the [defendant] upon his retirement which were accumulated during that period of time” … . The stipulation of settlement made no reference to the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas (61 NY2d 481), nor can such a reference be implied from the unambiguous terms of the stipulation … . Since the stipulation is controlling, the Supreme Court should not have granted the plaintiff’s cross motion for leave to enter her proposed DRO … . McPhillips v McPhillips, 2018 NY Slip Op 06896, Second Dept 10-17-18

FAMILY LAW (DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/CONTRACT LAW (FAMILY LAW, DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER (DRO)  (DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))/STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT (DIVORCE, DOMESTIC RELATIONS ORDER WHICH CONFLICTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION COULD NOT BE ENFORCED (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
PLAINTIFF SUED BOTH THE COUNTY AND THE SHERIFF FOR ALLEGED EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINATED WATER IN THE SHOWER AT THE JAIL; THE ACTION AGAINST THE COUNTY WAS NOT BROUGHT UNDER A VICARIOUS LIABILITY THEORY (THE COUNTY IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR THE ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF THE SHERIFF); RATHER THE CAUSE OF ACTION ALLEGED THE COUNTY WAS NEGLIGENT IN ITS OWN RIGHT (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT PEDIATRIC PRACTICE SUBMITTED EXPERT EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF’S ADOLESCENT SCOLIOSIS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DIAGNOSED UNTIL A YEAR AFTER PLAINTIFF LEFT DEFENDANT’S CARE; PLAINTIFF’S EXPERT AFFIDAVIT DID NOT ADDRESS THAT ISSUE; DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
Height Differential Between Concrete Slabs in Sidewalk “Trivial” As a Matter of Law
Allegations of Mutual Mistake in Counterclaim and Affirmative Defense Not Made With Requisite Particularity
COMMERCIAL LIABILITY CARRIER NOT OBLIGATED TO DEFEND ACTION FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND FORECLOSURE OF MECHANIC’S LIENS, POLICY ONLY COVERS PERSONAL INJURY, PROPERTY DAMAGE AND ADVERTISING INJURY (SECOND DEPT).
Provision Requiring Nonincumbents to Reside in District Does Not Violate Equal Protection
SALE OF LAND ORIGINALLY SET ASIDE FOR A CEMETERY WITHOUT RESTRICTIONS CONSTITUTED AN ABANDONMENT OF THE CEMETERY-RELATED USE-RESTRICTIONS ON THE LAND (SECOND DEPT).
PETITIONER, WHO WAS ADMITTED TO THE PRISON NURSERY PROGRAM AFTER STARTING AN ARTICLE 78 PROCEEDING CONTESTING THE WITHDRAWAL OF ADMISSION, WAS NOT A PREVAILING PARTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EQUAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE ACT, SHE WAS NOT, THEREFORE, ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY’S FEES 2ND 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

INSURANCE COMPANY NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR AN ALLEGED CIVIL ASSAULT AND BATTERY... POWERS GRANTED TO THE GUARDIAN FOR AN INCAPACITATED PERSON SHOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED...