De Luca v. De Luca
Cases that cite this one
30 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Drapkin v. Mafco Consolidated Group, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2011)
- C.A. v. J.D-A. (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County 2025)
- In re Miami Metals I, Inc. (United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York 2019)
- Matter of Crawley v. Crawley (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Oquendo v. CCC Terek (District Court, S.D. New York 2015)
- Ayers v. Ayers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Cavalry Construction, Inc. v. WDF, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
- Serdarevic v. Centex Homes, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
- Vetromile v. JPI PARTNERS, LLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2010)
- Porco v. Lexington Insurance (District Court, S.D. New York 2009)
- Rockland Exposition, Inc. v. Alliance of Automotive Service Providers (District Court, S.D. New York 2009)
- Cacace v. Meyer Marketing (Macau Commercial Offshore) Co. (District Court, S.D. New York 2008)
- Private One of New York, LLC v. JMRL Sales & Service, Inc. (District Court, E.D. New York 2007)
- Clark v. Clark (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- American Home Assur. Co. v. MERCK & CO. INC. (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
- Rje Corp. v. Northville Industries Corp. (2d Cir. 2003)
- Sapio v. Selux Corporation (District Court, N.D. New York 2024)
- General Electric Company v. APR Energy PLC (District Court, S.D. New York 2021)
- In re: Old Carco LLC (2d Cir. 2020)
- Compania Embotelladora Del Pacifico, S.A. v. Pepsi Cola Co. (2d Cir. 2020)
- Cohen v. Cohen (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
- J.A.H. v. E.G.M. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of English v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Brady v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2018)
- Matter of Miller v. Fitzpatrick (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 22, 1998, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated September 10, 2001, which denied her motion, inter alia, to modify a qualified domestic relations order by deleting the provision that the costs associated with the former spouse survivor annuity will be proportionately shared between the parties.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
On January 14, 1998, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement, and were subsequently granted a judgment of divorce, entered May 22, 1998. The stipulation of settlement was incorporated but did not merge into the judgment of divorce. Both the stipulation of settlement and judgment of divorce stated that the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the accumulated benefits accrued under the defendant’s retirement plan based on a dual life annuity.
A matrimonial settlement is a contract subject to the principles of contract interpretation (see Rainbow v Swisher, 72 NY2d 106; Girardin v Girardin, 281 AD2d 457). Where, as here, the contract is clear and unambiguous on its face, the intent of the parties must be gleaned from within the four corners of the instrument, and not from extrinsic evidence (see Rainbow v Swisher, supra).
The plaintiff contends that the qualified domestic relations order (hereinafter QDRO) does not comply with the stipulation of settlement as it provides that the parties shall share equally in the costs associated with the maintenance of a dual life annuity. As the stipulation of settlement states that the parties shall each receive 50% of the accumulated benefits accrued under the defendant’s retirement plan, the QDRO properly reflected the terms of the stipulation. Therefore, the plaintiff’s motion was properly denied.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.