Legal Opinion

Vicinanzo v. Best

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

Decided April 16, 1998PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

—Yesawich Jr., J.

Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (initiated in this Court pursuant to CPLR 506 [b] [1]) to compel respondent Justice of the Supreme Court to sign a proposed qualified domestic relations order.

*740When the parties to this divorce action were last before this Court, we granted petitioner’s request for, inter alia, “an income deduction order * * * in a form which [would] qualify as a Qualified Domestic Relations Order [hereinafter QDRO] under ERISA (29 U.S.C. § 1056 [d])”, to take effect when respondent Vincent Vicinanzo (hereinafter respondent), her former spouse, began to…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Legal Aid Society of Sullivan County, Inc. v. ScheinmanNew York Court of Appeals · 1981
  2. Klostermann v. CuomoNew York Court of Appeals · 1984
  3. Vicinanzo v. VicinanzoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
  4. General Steel Products Corp. v. City of New YorkNew York Supreme Court · 1959
  5. Bouchard v. AbbottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Vidurek v. Supreme CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013
  2. Vidurek v. Supreme CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2013

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

Powered by the Exa API