Siegel v. Siegel
| Decision Date | 12 October 1993 |
| Citation | 197 A.D.2d 569,602 N.Y.S.2d 421 |
| Parties | Allan SIEGEL, Appellant, v. Sandra SIEGEL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Phillips & Weiner, Lindenhurst (Robert L. Weiner, of counsel), for appellant.
Sandra Siegel, pro se.
Before BRACKEN, J.P., and BALLETTA, EIBER and COPERTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In an action for an accounting, for conversion, and to recover damages for an alleged breach of a stipulation of settlement entered into in a divorce action, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated May 17, 1991, as granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof which granted those branches of the motion which were to dismiss the third and fourth causes of action, and substituting therefor a provision denying those branches of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
The parties are former spouses. In 1988, in a prior action for a separation, they entered into a stipulation in open court, whereby the defendant was allowed to retain a portion of the insurance proceeds received by the parties for water damage sustained to some of the furnishings of the former marital home. The defendant was allowed to retain these proceeds based upon her representation that she had replaced these furnishings herself. A judgment of separation was entered by the defendant against the plaintiff.
The plaintiff thereafter instituted an action for a conversion divorce. On February 27, 1990, the parties entered into a stipulation in open court in the divorce action, whereby they agreed that the plaintiff was responsible for reimbursing the defendant for medical expenses in the sum of $886.75, and that the defendant would supply the plaintiff with copies of the medical bills substantiating that claim. The parties further agreed that, with the exception of the bedroom furnishings, the parties would divide all the furnishings in the marital home and, if they could not reach an agreement as to the division of these furnishings, the property would be sold at a tag sale. This stipulation was incorporated but not merged into the judgment of divorce.
The plaintiff then instituted the instant plenary action, seeking, in his first cause of action, an accounting of the insurance proceeds received by the defendant pursuant to the 1988 stipulation. The second cause of action sought damages for conversion in June 1989 of a 1979 Audi, which was allegedly marital property. The third cause of action sought damages for conversion of the furnishings in the former marital home. The fourth cause of action sought damages for the defendant's failure to submit proof of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Brown
...N.Y.S.2d 1 (1st Dept. 2003) ; Jackson v. Brinkman, 10 Misc.3d 1068A, 814 N.Y.S. 2d 561 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006) ; Siegel v. Siegel , 197 A.D.2d 569, 602 N.Y.S.2d 421 (2d Dept. 1993).27 In executing the Term Sheet and incorporating it into the Divorce Judgment, Jennifer assumed the risk that the......
-
Sacks v. Sacks
...is not merged into the judgment. This is so because the stipulation of settlement survives as a separate contract (see, Siegel v. Siegel, 197 A.D.2d 569, 602 N.Y.S.2d 421; Fine v. Fine, 191 A.D.2d 410, 594 N.Y.S.2d 309; Lambert v. Lambert, 142 A.D.2d 557, 530 N.Y.S.2d 223; Culp v. Culp, 117......
-
MG v. SA
...of settlement survives as a separate contract” (Sacks v. Sacks, 220 A.D.2d 736, 737 [2d Dept 1995] ; see also Siegel v. Siegel, 197 A.D.2d 569, 570 [2d Dept 1993] ). Here, the Custody Agreement, which was incorporated into the Stipulation of Settlement, but not merged into the Judgment of D......