LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 3208741
Citation: domestic relations order · Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- domestic relations order
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 3208741 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to pension / defined benefit issues. The current annotation is conservative: it identifies source provenance, relevance signals, and evidence quotes for attorney/agent retrieval. It is not a Willie-approved legal headnote yet.
Retrieval annotation
Draft retrieval summary: this opinion has QDRO relevance score 5/5, retirement-division score 5/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.
Category: pension / defined benefit issues
Evidence quotes
pension“pursuant to a judgment of divorce that incorporated, but did not merge, the terms of a stipulated partial settlement agreement regarding the division of certain specified property, including the husband's New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System pension. In January 2011, shortly after the husband retired, the wife moved for entry of a domestic relations order (hereinafter DRO) awarding her a marital share of the husband's pension valued as of the date of his retirement – namely, September 28, 2010. The -2- 521952 husband cross-moved for entry of a different DRO awarding the wife a marital share of his pe”
domestic relations order“pulated partial settlement agreement regarding the division of certain specified property, including the husband's New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System pension. In January 2011, shortly after the husband retired, the wife moved for entry of a domestic relations order (hereinafter DRO) awarding her a marital share of the husband's pension valued as of the date of his retirement – namely, September 28, 2010. The -2- 521952 husband cross-moved for entry of a different DRO awarding the wife a marital share of his pension valued as of the date of commencement of the divorce action, which was May 21, 1998. The difference in”
Source and provenance
- Source type
- courtlistener_qdro_opinion_full_text
- Permissions posture
- public
- Generated status
- machine draft public v0
- Review status
- gold label pending
- Jurisdiction metadata
- US
- Deterministic extraction
- reporter: domestic relations order
- Generated at
- May 14, 2026
Related public corpus pages
Deterministic links based on shared title/citation terms and QDRO / retirement / family-law retrieval scores.
Clean opinion text
State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: June 2, 2016 521952 ________________________________ SHERILYN F. VAN ORDEN, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RICHARD E. VAN ORDEN, Appellant. ________________________________ Calendar Date: April 20, 2016 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Devine, Clark and Mulvey, JJ. __________ Bailey, Kelleher & Johnson, PC, Albany (John W. Kraigenow of counsel), for appellant. Cynthia Feathers, Glens Falls, for respondent. __________ McCarthy, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Connolly, J.), entered January 22, 2015 in Albany County, which, among other things, denied defendant's motion to amend a prior domestic relations order. Plaintiff (hereinafter the wife) and defendant (hereinafter the husband) were divorced in December 1999 pursuant to a judgment of divorce that incorporated, but did not merge, the terms of a stipulated partial settlement agreement regarding the division of certain specified property, including the husband's New York State and Local Employees' Retirement System pension. In January 2011, shortly after the husband retired, the wife moved for entry of a domestic relations order (hereinafter DRO) awarding her a marital share of the husband's pension valued as of the date of his retirement – namely, September 28, 2010. The -2- 521952 husband cross-moved for entry of a different DRO awarding the wife a marital share of his pension valued as of the date of commencement of the divorce action, which was May 21, 1998. The difference in the parties' interpretation of the proper DRO related to their different interpretations of the provision in the separation agreement related to the division of the husband's pension. Eventually, this Court found that the terms of the parties' settlement agreement entitled the wife to the marital portion of the husband's pension \as valued at the time of the