Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Fisher v. Fisher

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided November 13, 2014Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLynch, J.

I join in the majority opinion, except with respect to Supreme Court’s failure to address the selection of a particular payment option for the pension of plaintiff (hereinafter the husband). A review of the record shows that the available options were received in evidence, but neither party addressed the selection of an option. As it currently stands, the husband could select the “single life allowance” option, which yields the highest payment but will stop when the husband dies. The reasoned concern of defendant (hereinafter the wife) is that if her husband predeceases her, she will lose her…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Majauskas v. MajauskasNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  2. Mager v. MagerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1999
  3. McVeigh v. CurryAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API