LexyCorpus case page
CourtListener opinion 4084534
Date unknown · US
- Extracted case name
- pending
- Extracted reporter citation
- pending
- Docket / number
- pending
Machine-draft headnote
Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4084534 is included in the LexyCorpus QDRO sample set as a public CourtListener opinion with relevance to QDRO procedure / domestic relations order 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 2/5, and family-law score 5/5. Use the quoted text and full opinion below before relying on the case.
Category: QDRO procedure / domestic relations order issues
Evidence quotes
QDRO“so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, regardless of the potential merit to plaintiff's contention in opposition to defendant's motion to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order dated July 11, 2003 (see e.g. Lemesis v Lemesis, 38 AD3d 1331, 1332; Hoke v Hoke, 27 AD3d 1055, 1056; see generally Kazel v Kazel, 3 NY3d 331, 332-335), the court properly refused to consider the relief requested by plaintiff inasmuch as he did not file or serve a notice of cross motion (see CPLR 2215; see e.g. Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian, 64”
domestic relations order“d from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, regardless of the potential merit to plaintiff's contention in opposition to defendant's motion to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order dated July 11, 2003 (see e.g. Lemesis v Lemesis, 38 AD3d 1331, 1332; Hoke v Hoke, 27 AD3d 1055, 1056; see generally Kazel v Kazel, 3 NY3d 331, 332-335), the court properly refused to consider the relief requested by plaintiff inasmuch as he did not file or serve a notice of cross motion (see CPLR 2215; see e.g. Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian, 64”
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
- pending
- 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
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department 745 CA 12-01573 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CENTRA, FAHEY, CARNI, AND LINDLEY, JJ. JOSEPH A. VARLARO, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DEBORA VARLARO, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. LORRAINE H. LEWANDROWSKI, HERKIMER, FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. MCLANE, SMITH AND LASCURETTES, L.L.P., UTICA (TOD M. LASCURETTES OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Herkimer County (Patrick L. Kirk, A.J.), entered December 15, 2011. The order granted the motion of defendant to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order dated July 11, 2003. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: We affirm for reasons stated in the decision at Supreme Court. We add only that, regardless of the potential merit to plaintiff's contention in opposition to defendant's motion to amend the Qualified Domestic Relations Order dated July 11, 2003 (see e.g. Lemesis v Lemesis, 38 AD3d 1331, 1332; Hoke v Hoke, 27 AD3d 1055, 1056; see generally Kazel v Kazel, 3 NY3d 331, 332-335), the court properly refused to consider the relief requested by plaintiff inasmuch as he did not file or serve a notice of cross motion (see CPLR 2215; see e.g. Free in Christ Pentecostal Church v Julian, 64 AD3d 1153, 1153-1154; New York State Div. of Human Rights v Oceanside Cove II Apt. Corp., 39 AD3d 608, 609; Khaolaead v Leisure Video, 18 AD3d 820, 821; Torre v Torre [appeal No. 1], 142 AD2d 942, 942). Entered: June 14, 2013 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court