TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Holliday v. Holliday

Paulette Holliday v. Morton Holliday

Holliday v. Holliday, 58 A.D.2d 619 (1977)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
June 20, 1977
Citations
58 A.D.2d 619395 N.Y.S.2d 6951977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12681

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff was previously granted a judgment of divorce, she appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 21, 1976, which, inter alia, denied her motion to (a) enforce a stipulation which was incorporated into but survived the judgment of divorce, (b) adjudge the defendant to be in contempt of court and (c) assess a counsel fee and (2) an order of the same court, dated December 2, 1976, which denied her motion for reargument. Appeal from the order dated December 2, 1976 dismissed, without costs or disbursements. *620 No appeal lies from an order denying reargument. Order dated September 21, 1976 modified by (1) deleting the second sentence of the first decretal paragraph thereof and (2) deleting the third decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the following: "The branches of plaintiff’s motion which seek specific enforcement of the stipulation and counsel fees are granted to the extent that a hearing is directed with respect thereto.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements, and action remanded to Special Term for further proceedings consistent herewith. While the court properly refused to entertain the application to hold defendant in contempt (see 22 NYCRR 699.9 [f] [4]; see, also, Domestic Relations Law, § 245; Kolmer v Kolmer, 13 Mise 2d 313, affd 6 AD2d 1001 ), the application for specific enforcement of the stipulation should not have been denied. "No plenary action for specific performance is necessary * * * where * * * the judgment of divorce recites that the court retains jurisdiction to enforce such provisions of the [stipulation] as are capable of specific enforcement” (Gilbert v Gilbert, 54 AD2d 752, 753 ). Since an application for specific enforcement is an action on the judgment (see Gilbert v Gilbert, supra), counsel fees may be awarded in the discretion of the court (see Domestic Relations Law, § 238; cf. Fabrikant v Fabrikant, 19 NY2d 154 ). Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Mollen and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1983: 21989: 11992: 12015: 119832026peak 1983 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rothstein v. Rothstein145 Misc. 2d 481 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989)
  2. Pelgrim v. Pelgrim127 A.D.3d 710 (2015)
  3. MacFadden v. Martini119 Misc. 2d 94 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 1983)
  4. Handel v. Handel94 A.D.2d 696 (1983)
  5. Brown v. Keating182 A.D.2d 552 (1992)

Most recent

  1. Pelgrim v. Pelgrim127 A.D.3d 710 (2015)
  2. Brown v. Keating182 A.D.2d 552 (1992)
  3. Rothstein v. Rothstein145 Misc. 2d 481 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1989)
  4. Handel v. Handel94 A.D.2d 696 (1983)
  5. MacFadden v. Martini119 Misc. 2d 94 (N.Y.C. Fam. Ct. 1983)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 3

DepthCaseCited by
Gilbert v. Gilbert, 54 A.D.2d 752 (1976) 7
Fabrikant v. Fabrikant, 225 N.E.2d 202 (N.Y. 1967) 27
Kolmer v. Kolmer, 6 A.D.2d 1001 (1958) 5

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list