green
Positive treatment
14.8 score
Treatment trajectory · 2000 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2000
2013
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
J.W. v. D.W.
Thus, plaintiff is not entitled to any gains on that amount accrued after the divorce action commenced . . . ") • McWade v. McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 (2d Dept. 1998) ("[T]he plaintiff's counsel stipulated in open court that the value of the defendant's pension was $446,707.69 as of the date the action was commenced.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Navarette v. Navarette
Accordingly, the court should construe a stipulation made in open court in accordance with the intent of the parties and the purpose of the stipulation, as revealed by the record as a whole (see White v Mazella-White, 60 AD3d 1047, 1049 [2009]; McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]; De Gaust v De Gaust, 237 AD2d 862, 862 [1997]; Sklerov v Sklerov, 231 AD2d 622, 622 [1996]; see also Coulon v Coulon, 82 AD3d 929, 929-930 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Navarette v. Navarette
Accordingly, the court should construe a stipulation made in open court in accordance with the intent of the parties and the purpose of the stipulation, as revealed by the record as a whole (see White v Mazella-White, 60 AD3d 1047, 1049 [2009]; McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]; De Gaust v De Gaust, 237 AD2d 862, 862 [1997]; Sklerov v Sklerov, 231 AD2d 622, 622 [1996]; see also Coulon v Coulon, 82 AD3d 929, 929-930 [2011]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Etzion v. Etzion
Assoc. v Giancontieri, 77 NY2d 157, 162 [1990]). “ ‘[C]ourts may not by construction add or excise terms, nor distort the meaning of those used and thereby make a new contract for the parties under the guise of interpreting the writing’ ” (Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v 538 Madison Realty Co., 1 NY3d 470, 475 [2004], quoting Reiss v Financial Performance Corp., 97 NY2d 195, 199 [2001]; see Riverside S. Planning Corp. v CRP/Extell Riverside, L.P., 13 NY3d 398, 404 [2009]; McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Watson v. Watson
“A court should construe [such] a stipulation made in open court in accordance with the intent of the parties and the purpose of the stipulation by examining the record as a whole” (Hannigan v Hannigan, 50 AD3d 957, 958 [2008]; see White v Mazella-White, 60 AD3d 1047, 1049 [2009]; McWade v MeWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hannigan v. Hannigan
(2×)
A stipulation is an independent contract which is subject to the principles of contract law (see Simmons v Simmons, 305 AD2d 661 [2003]; Dreiss v Dreiss, 258 AD2d 499 [1999]; Mc Wade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elwell v. Elwell
Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that each order properly reflects the parties’ stipulation that defendant would receive her share of benefits upon plaintiffs retirement in accordance with the formula set forth in Majauskas v Majauskas ( 61 NY2d 481 [1984]), and that defendant’s share of benefits was not limited to a portion of the value of those benefits as of the date on which the action was commenced (see Cuda v Cuda, 19 AD3d 1114, 1114-1115 [2005]; cf. McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cuda v. Cuda
Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the amended QDRO properly reflects the parties’ agreement that plaintiff would receive her share of benefits upon defendant’s retirement in accordance with the Majauskas formula (see Majauskas v Majauskas, 61 NY2d 481 [1984]), and that her share was not limited to a portion of the value of those benefits as of the date on which the action was commenced (cf. McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ernst v. Ernst
There is no evidence to support the defendant’s claim that the parties intended to value the plaintiffs interest in the pension plan upon distribution (see O’Beirne v O’ Beirne, supra; Biglin v Biglin, 2 AD3d 380, 381 [2003]; Simmons v Simmons, supra; Moran v Moran, 289 AD2d 544, 545 [2001]; Pollack v Pollack, 288 AD2d 201 [2001]; Dreiss v Dreiss, supra; McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]; Wieners v Wieners, 239 AD2d 493, 494 [1997]).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Pellino v. Pellino
Moreover, a court should not, under the guise of interpretation, make a new contract for the parties (see McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]; Sklerov v Sklerov, 231 AD2d 622 [1996]).
cited
Cited "see"
Clear Channel Outdoor, LLC v. City of New Rochelle
See McWade v. McWade, 253 A.D.2d 798, 799 (2nd Dep’t 1998).
discussed
Cited "see"
Chan v. Barry
Ordered that the judgment, as amended by the supplemental judgment, is affirmed, with costs. “[A]n open-court stipulation is an independent contract between the parties . . . and will be enforced according to its terms unless there is proof of fraud, duress, overreaching, or unconscionability” (Jablonski v Jablonski, 275 AD2d 692, 693 [2000] [citation omitted]; see McWade v McWade, 253 AD2d 798, 799 [1998]).
Gregg Martin
v.
Ron Paisner, and Jonas A. Weiner, and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Garay Construction, Inc., Third-Party
v.
Ron Paisner, and Jonas A. Weiner, and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Garay Construction, Inc., Third-Party
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Sep 21, 1998.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the third-party defendant, Garay Construction, Inc., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Colabella, J.), entered March 13, 1997, which denied its motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint and all cross claims asserted against it on the ground that they are barred by the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the defendants Ron Paisner and Lizl Construction Corp.
We decline the third-party defendant’s invitation to reconsider our opinion in Morales v Gross (230 AD2d 7) that the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act of 1996 (L 1996, ch 635, §§ 2-9) does not apply retroactively to cases pending at the time of its enactment (see also, Majewski v Broadalbin-Perth Cent. School Dist., 231 AD2d 102, affd 91 NY2d 577). O’Brien, J. P., Joy, Altman and Luciano, JJ., concur.