Paruch v. Paruch
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
*419The defendant indicates in his brief that he has abañdoned his appeals from the orders dismissed herein because those orders are brought up for review by his appeals from the judgment entered March 27, 1987, and the resettled judgment *420entered March 30, 1987, and if the appeals from those orders had been perfected they would have been dismissed under Matter of Aho (39 NY2d 241). "Generally, separation agreements which are regular on their face are binding on the parties, unless and until they are put aside (2 Foster & Freed, Law and the Family, p 476; see, also, Schmelzel v Schmelzel, 287 NY…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- In re AhoNew York Court of Appeals · 1976
- Christian v. ChristianNew York Court of Appeals · 1977
- Commissioner of Social Services v. Philip De G.New York Court of Appeals · 1983
- Surlak v. SurlakAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Schmelzel v. SchmelzelNew York Court of Appeals · 1941
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by12 opinions
- Orco Bank v. PacificoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992
- Kessler v. KesslerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2006
- Cantamessa v. CantamessaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Cardinal v. CardinalAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000
- Amestoy v. AmestoyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.