Felix v. Felix
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*1107Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the Supreme Court did not err in awarding a portion of his retirement benefits to the plaintiff (see Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481 [1984]). The plaintiff was not seeking an immediate payment of her share of the retirement benefits, so a valuation of them as a lump sum was unnecessary (see Koeth v Koeth, 309 AD2d 786 [2003]). Sufficient evidence was presented at trial to support the Supreme Court’s determination that the plaintiff was entitled to 50% of the marital share of those benefits. In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- Majauskas v. MajauskasNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
- Granade-Bastuck v. BastuckAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998
- Bibas v. BibasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2009
- Diblasi v. DiblasiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2008
- Haines v. HainesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2007
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Mejia v. MejiaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
- Lewis v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Dochter v. DochterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Dochter v. DochterAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- Lewis v. LewisAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.