New York Court of Appeals, 1985

De Jose v. De Jose

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 12, 1985

66 N.Y.2d 804; 488 N.E.2d 837; 497 N.Y.S.2d 907; 1985 N.Y. LEXIS 17934

Cases that cite this one

12 later published cases cite this decision.

Cohen v. Seletsky (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
Acito v. Acito (New York Supreme Court 2009)
Pretterhofer v. Pretterhofer (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
Rubenfeld v. Rubenfeld (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
Roos v. Roos (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
Shoretz v. Shoretz (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
Caramante v. Caramante (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Stimmel v. Stimmel (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
Cantlin v. Cantlin (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Smith v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Frys v. Frys (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)
Marinello v. Marinello (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1986)

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

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Prior to the effective date of the Equitable Distribution Law (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B], eff July 19, 1980), the parties entered into a separation agreement which was intended to be a complete settlement of their property rights. Such an agreement is governed by the former statutory provisions and decisional law, and equitable distribution is not available (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [3]). Consequently, whether the "opting out” provisions of the Equitable Distribution Law were complied with is irrelevant.

We have not reviewed the Appellate Division’s affirmance of the Supreme Court order denying defendant’s motion to vacate the settlement. That order is nonfinal and is not brought up for review by CPLR 5501 (a) (1) on this appeal (Cohen and *807Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals § 36, at 144-146; § 78, at 337-338 [rev ed]).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concur; Judges Meyer and Simons taking no part.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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