From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Schmitt v. Schmitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1986
123 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

October 2, 1986

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


Cross appeal dismissed, without costs or disbursements, for failure to perfect in accordance with the rules of this court ( 22 NYCRR 670.20 [d], [f]).

Order modified, on the law, by deleting the provision denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim for reformation of the separation agreement, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion. As so modified, order affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term properly determined that the property in question, acquired during the marriage and before a separation agreement was signed or a matrimonial action was commenced, was a marital asset subject to equitable distribution (Domestic Relations Law § 236 [B] [1] [c]; [3]).

However, an action for reformation of a contract is governed by the six-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 213). The defendant's counterclaim to reform the separation agreement was not brought until 1985, some 7 1/2 years after the parties entered into the agreement. Therefore, that counterclaim was time barred and should have been dismissed. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Schmitt v. Schmitt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 2, 1986
123 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Schmitt v. Schmitt

Case Details

Full title:JOHN SCHMITT, Appellant-Respondent, v. CAROL SCHMITT, Respondent-Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 2, 1986

Citations

123 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Torres v. Tobar

In any event, Domestic Relations Law (DRL) § 236 (1) (b), Part B, defines "marital property" as "all property…

Cucchiaro v. Cucchiaro

The separation agreement at issue is a contract under New York law. (See, Borax v Borax, 4 N.Y.2d 113; see…