From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Kurtz v. Kurtz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1987
135 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

December 14, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied in its entirety.

Contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the parties' stipulation of September 26, 1985 expressly provided for the discontinuance of the instant action for divorce brought by the plaintiff husband unless he placed the matter on the Inquest Calendar within six months of that date. It is undisputed that he failed to satisfy the condition and, therefore, in accordance with the terms of the stipulation, the action was terminated. Since the action was no longer pending, the court was without jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's application (see, Teitelbaum Holdings v Gold, 48 N.Y.2d 51; Urso v Panish, 94 A.D.2d 701). Any relief which the plaintiff seeks to obtain, either with regard to the parties' separation agreement or their marital status, must be obtained by way of a plenary action. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Kurtz v. Kurtz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 14, 1987
135 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Kurtz v. Kurtz

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL KURTZ, Respondent, v. PILAR KURTZ, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 14, 1987

Citations

135 A.D.2d 615 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Germanovich v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation [4th Dept 2000

Third-party plaintiffs brought their application after the primary action was settled and an unconditional…

Germanovich v. Bethlehem Steel Corporation

Third-party plaintiffs brought their application after the primary action was settled and an unconditional…