← LexyCorpus index

LexyCorpus case page

CourtListener opinion 4087981

Date unknown · US

Extracted case name
pending
Extracted reporter citation
pending
Docket / number
pending
QDRO relevance 5/5Retirement relevance 2/5Family-law relevance 5/5gold label pending
Research-use warning: This page contains machine-draft public annotations generated from public opinion text. The headnote is not Willie-approved gold-label work product and is not legal advice. Verify the full opinion and current law before relying on it.

Machine-draft headnote

Machine-draft public headnote: CourtListener opinion 4087981 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

CONE OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. SHARON ANSCOMBE OSGOOD, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Janice M. Rosa, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to enter a stipulated qualified domestic relations order. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On this appeal by plaintiff from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), we note that no appeal lies as of right from such an order (see Irato v Irato, 288 AD2d 952). Nevertheless, inasmuch as plaintiff "raised timely objections prior to the ent

domestic relations order

UNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. SHARON ANSCOMBE OSGOOD, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Janice M. Rosa, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to enter a stipulated qualified domestic relations order. It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: On this appeal by plaintiff from a qualified domestic relations order (QDRO), we note that no appeal lies as of right from such an order (see Irato v Irato, 288 AD2d 952). Nevertheless, inasmuch as plaintiff "raised timely objections prior to the ent

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
1502
CA 10-01598
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

EDWARD A. PISKORZ, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,

 V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MARILYN PISKORZ, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

ZARCONE ASSOCIATES, PLLC, AMHERST (KELLY V. ZARCONE OF COUNSEL), FOR
PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.

SHARON ANSCOMBE OSGOOD, BUFFALO, FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

 Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Janice M.
Rosa, J.), entered March 9, 2010, which granted defendant's motion to
enter a stipulated qualified domestic relations order.

 It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed without costs.

 Memorandum: On this appeal by plaintiff from a qualified
domestic relations order (QDRO), we note that no appeal lies as of
right from such an order (see Irato v Irato, 288 AD2d 952).
Nevertheless, inasmuch as plaintiff "raised timely objections prior to
the entry of the QDRO and thereby preserved a record for our review,"
we treat the notice of appeal as an application for leave to appeal
and grant the application (id. at 952). Upon considering the merits
of plaintiff's contention, we affirm the order.

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan
 Clerk of the Court