Van Pelt v. Van Pelt
| Decision Date | 15 April 1991 |
| Citation | 172 A.D.2d 659,568 N.Y.S.2d 160 |
| Parties | Rosemary VAN PELT, Appellant, v. Richard VAN PELT, Defendant, Adeline Van Pelt, Nonparty-Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Carolyn M. Halk, Staten Island, for appellant.
Joel Field, New York City, for nonparty-respondent.
Before SULLIVAN, J.P., and EIBER, ROSENBLATT and RITTER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.), dated September 29, 1989, which granted the nonparty-respondent's motion to direct that the judgment of divorce be entered nunc pro tunc as of January 20, 1988.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
In this matrimonial action, the Supreme Court, on January 20, 1988, upon the uncontested withdrawal of the defendant husband's answer and after an inquest on the plaintiff first wife's complaint, stated that a "judgment of divorce [is] granted" to the first wife and directed the parties to submit separate findings of fact, conclusions of law, judgment and minutes on notice. Before the judgment of divorce was signed on March 31, 1988, the husband married the second wife on February 10, 1988.
The husband died on December 27, 1988. By letter dated May 1, 1989, the Social Security Administration advised the second wife that she was not entitled to Social Security benefits as the husband's widow because her marriage to the husband was void, in that her "husband's prior marriage had not ended when [she] married him".
The second wife moved in the divorce action to have the judgment dated March 31, 1988, amended nunc pro tunc so as provide that it became effective as of January 20, 1988. Contrary to the first wife's contention, the second wife, although not a party to the divorce action, had standing to make the motion (see, Johnson v. Johnson, 198 Misc. 691, 695, 98 N.Y.S.2d 336, affd. 277 App.Div. 1143, 101 N.Y.S.2d 936).
It is clear that the trial court rendered its determination on January 20, 1988, and the entry of the final judgment of divorce on March 31, 1988, constituted nothing more than a mere formality or ministerial act. Therefore, the second wife's application being meritorious, the court properly amended the judgment of divorce nunc pro tunc (see, Lynch v. Lynch, 13 N.Y.2d 615, 240 N.Y.S.2d 604, 191 N.E.2d 90; Cornell v. Cornell, 7 N.Y.2d 164, 196 N.Y.S.2d 98, 164 N.E.2d 395; Jayson v. Jayson, 54 A.D.2d 687, 387 N.Y.S.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Heinemann v. State
...have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., Pratt v. Pratt , 99 Wash.2d 905, 665 P.2d 400, 402–03 (1983) ; Van Pelt v. Van Pelt , 172 A.D.2d 659, 568 N.Y.S.2d 160, 161 (1991).2 Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-6-106(c) provides, in pertinent part:In every case in which a person has received services un......
-
In re Estate of Becker
...the marriage and the effective date of the decree. See Malott v. Malott, 145 Ariz. 587, 703 P.2d 531 (App. 1985); Van Pelt v. Van Pelt, 172 A.D.2d 659, 568 N.Y.S.2d 160 (1991); C.P. Jhong, Annotation, Entering Judgment or Decree of Divorce Nunc Pro Tunc, 19 A.L.R.3d 648 (2000). We agree wit......
-
Joseph v. Holder
...for a judge's order in a divorce proceeding to become effective as between the spouses. See, e.g., Van Pelt v. Van Pelt, 172 A.D.2d 659, 568 N.Y.S.2d 160, 161 (N.Y.App.Div.1991) (holding that husband's marriage to second wife, which occurred after judge issued order granting divorce from fi......
-
Forgione, Matter of
...7 N.Y.2d 164, 170, 196 N.Y.S.2d 98, 164 N.E.2d 395; see also, Brown v. Brown, 208 A.D.2d 485, 617 N.Y.S.2d 48; Van Pelt v. Van Pelt, 172 A.D.2d 659, 568 N.Y.S.2d 160), the record does not support the petitioner's claim that this exception is applicable in this matter. To the contrary, the J......