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.
Harvey SCHILDKRAUT, Respondent, v. Ruth SCHILDKRAUT, Appellant.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (LeVine, J.), dated June 20, 1996, which (1) granted the plaintiff husband's motion, inter alia, for a Qualified Domestic Relations Order to the extent of directing her to return to him the proceeds of his retirement account, and (2) denied her cross motion for (a) attorney's fees, (b) reimbursement of expenses associated with the sale of the marital premises, and (c) sequestration of the husband's retirement account as security for his maintenance obligation.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
By decision and order of this court dated January 16, 1996, a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, granting the husband a divorce was reversed and his complaint was dismissed (see, Schildkraut v. Schildkraut, 223 A.D.2d 585, 636 N.Y.S.2d 411). While the appeal was pending, however, the husband transferred to the wife, under the equitable distribution portion of the divorce judgment, the proceeds of his retirement account. Following reversal of the judgment, the Supreme Court granted the husband's motion for an order directing the return of those funds. We now affirm.
Contrary to the wife's contention, the court was not without authority, due to the dismissal of the original divorce complaint, to direct the return of those funds (see, CPLR 5015[d]; Chase Manhattan Bank U.S.A. v. Kassam, 167 Misc.2d 933, 640 N.Y.S.2d 1001) and its determination in this regard was not erroneous (cf., Carroll v. Miller, 213 A.D.2d 694, 624 N.Y.S.2d 627).
The wife's remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: June 23, 1997
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)