From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sylvester v. Sylvester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 2002
290 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-06274, 2001-06275

Submitted January 4, 2002.

January 22, 2002.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered May 17, 1996, the plaintiff appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered June 11, 2001, which granted the defendant's motion, in effect, to amend a Qualified Domestic Relations Order of the same court entered May 17, 1996, to meet the requirements of his employer's retirement pension, and (2) a Qualified Domestic Relations Order of the same court, entered June 14, 2001.

Capell Vishnick, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Andrew A. Kimler of counsel), for appellant.

Philip J. Castrovinci, Smithtown, N.Y. (Ruth Sovronsky of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the appeal from the Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered June 14, 2001, is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that order entered June 11, 2001, is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

No appeal lies as of right from the entry of a Qualified Domestic Relations Order (hereinafter QDRO) which functions to implement those portions of the judgment of divorce awarding one spouse an interest in the marital portion of the other spouse's retirement pension (see, CPLR 5701[a][2]; Gormley v. Gormley, 238 A.D.2d 545, 546). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to grant the plaintiff leave to appeal from the QDRO entered June 14, 2001.

The Supreme Court properly granted the defendant's motion, in effect, to amend the QDRO entered May 17, 1996, to meet the requirements of the retirement pension of the plaintiff's employer (see, Majauskas v. Majauskas, 61 N.Y.2d 481). The plaintiff's objections thereto are either unpreserved for appellate review, barred by laches, or without merit (see, Larson v. Albany Med. Ctr., 252 A.D.2d 936; Gormley v. Gormley, supra).

SMITH, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sylvester v. Sylvester

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 22, 2002
290 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Sylvester v. Sylvester

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT R. SYLVESTER, appellant, v. BETH SYLVESTER, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jan 22, 2002

Citations

290 A.D.2d 501 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
736 N.Y.S.2d 261

Citing Cases

Romero v. Romero

Under analogous circumstances, courts have held that "no appeal lies as of right solely from the entry of a…

McQuade v. McQuade

That provision must be given effect. Since the Retirement System has not recognized that the QDRO requires…