From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Carr v. Jonbil, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1997
245 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)

Opinion

December 8, 1997

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.).


Ordered that the judgment and the order are reversed, with one bill of costs, on the law and the facts, and the proceeding is dismissed.

Contrary to the trial court's determination, no qualified domestic relations order was entered in the present proceeding (see, Internal Revenue Code [26 USC] § 414 [p]; 29 U.S.C. § 1056 [d] [3]). Therefore, pursuant to CPLR 5205 (c), the funds in the appellant's account with the Jonbil, Inc., Merged Profit Sharing Plan (hereinafter the plan) are exempt from satisfying the petitioner's judgment (see, Dallin v. Dallin 225 A.D.2d 728). Moreover, a pension plan may not be assigned or alienated unless a qualified domestic relations order is issued (see, 29 U.S.C. § 1056 [d] [1], [3]; Winter v. Boskin, 181 A.D.2d 1000).

Furthermore, the evidence presented failed to establish that Susan Carr and the appellant are joint beneficiaries of the appellant's account. Rather, the evidence established that the appellant is a participant in the plan and Susan Carr's consent was needed merely to approve early lump sum payment in order to protect her rights as a potential surviving spouse.

Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Santucci and Lerner, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Carr v. Jonbil, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1997
245 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
Case details for

Matter of Carr v. Jonbil, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SUSAN C. CARR, Respondent, v. JONBIL, INC., et al.…

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

Date published: Dec 8, 1997

Citations

245 A.D.2d 369 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)
666 N.Y.S.2d 193

Citing Cases

Costa v. Costa

This 55-45 distribution is equitable under the circumstances ( see Naimollah v De Ugarte, 18 AD3d 268, 269),…