Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Corradina ZOLLNER, appellant, v. John A. ZOLLNER, respondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered June 4, 1982, the plaintiff former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Durante, J.), dated February 24, 1998, which denied her motion to modify the judgment of divorce to direct that she receive her equitable share of the defendant former husband's pension and 401K plan.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Under the parties' stipulation of settlement, either party had the right to apply to modify the judgment of divorce in the event, inter alia, that the defendant opted to exercise his rights under a pension plan available through his employer prior to January 15, 1990. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the defendant never opted to exercise his pension rights prior to January 15, 1990. Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to modification of the judgment of divorce pursuant to the stipulation of settlement. In addition, the judgment of divorce does not allow the plaintiff to obtain equitable distribution of the defendant's pension and 401K plan.
We further conclude that by virtue of her failure to litigate the issue of equitable distribution or to include an express provision in the parties' stipulation of settlement as to a future distribution of, inter alia, the defendant's pension, the plaintiff is now barred by the doctrine of res judicata from seeking any further equitable distribution (see, Rainbow v. Swisher, 72 N.Y.2d 106, 110, 531 N.Y.S.2d 775, 527 N.E.2d 258; Boronow v. Boronow, 71 N.Y.2d 284, 289-290, 525 N.Y.S.2d 179, 519 N.E.2d 1375).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: July 06, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)