New York Court of Appeals, 1982

Pollack v. Pollack

New York Court of Appeals · Decided June 17, 1982

56 N.Y.2d 968; 439 N.E.2d 339; 453 N.Y.S.2d 623; 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3525

Cases that cite this one

13 later published cases cite this decision.

LaRue v. LaRue (W. Va. 1983)
Broder v. Broder (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Felt v. Felt (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Battaglia v. Battaglia (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
Heinz v. Heinz (New York Supreme Court 2011)
Mamet v. Mamet (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Pearson v. Pearson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
Thompson v. Thompson (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
Motler v. Motler (N.Y. 1983)
Motler v. Motler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Parry v. Parry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Ward v. Ward (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Ullo v. Ullo (New York Supreme Court 1982)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [b]), order affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative. The Legislature has determined that the controlling factor with respect to the applicability of the Equitable Distribution Law (Domestic Relations Law, § 236, part B) to pre-existing causes of action is not the date on which issue was joined, or the possibility that the party may be the type of person the law was generally intended to benefit, but the date on which the action was commenced (Valladares v Valladares, 55 NY2d 388; Tucker v Tucker, 55 NY2d 378; Zuckerman v Zuckerman, 56 NY2d 636). In this case the action was commenced before the new law became effective and therefore the application for a voluntary discontinuance in order to avoid the legislative mandate must be denied (Tucker v Tucker, supra, pp 384-385).

Concur: Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.