NEXT

Elliott Scheinberg

Elliott Scheinberg

February 17, 2022 | New York Law Journal

'Citibank v. Kerszko': A Trifecta of Novel Issues and Determinations, Part II

'Citibank, N.A. v. Kerszko' is a discerning and masterful dissection of the junction where "a variety of" "unusual" legal issues, some of first impression, have converged.

By Elliott Scheinberg

16 minute read

February 16, 2022 | New York Law Journal

'Citibank v. Kerszko': A Trifecta of Novel Issues and Determinations, Part I

The majority opinion, in 'Citibank, N.A. v. Kerszko' is a discerning and masterful dissection of the junction where "a variety of" "unusual" legal issues, some of first impression, have converged.

By Elliott Scheinberg

15 minute read

January 06, 2022 | New York Law Journal

Court of Appeals Settles 'Cured Acknowledgments'; Contemporaneous vs. Simultaneous: Part II

This second part of a two-part article addresses 'Koegel' throughout all judicial levels; unacknowledged agreements remain enforceable in nonmatrimonial actions; methodology of acknowledgment vs. evidence of proper acknowledgment; and evidence of acknowledgment by a subscribing witness.

By Elliott Scheinberg

16 minute read

January 05, 2022 | New York Law Journal

Court of Appeals Settles 'Cured Acknowledgments'; Contemporaneous vs. Simultaneous: Part I

On Dec. 16, 2021, the Court of Appeals, in 'Anderson v. Anderson' intelligently settled burning questions, which, for nearly 25 years, confounded bench and bar regarding acknowledgments in marital agreements.

By Elliott Scheinberg

16 minute read

December 01, 2021 | New York Law Journal

General and Specific Objections on Appeal: Part II

This is the second part of a two-part article that reviews the tight rules governing the appealability of general and specific objections, sustained and overruled, which are anchored in the foundational principle of preservation.

By Elliott Scheinberg

14 minute read

November 30, 2021 | New York Law Journal

General and Specific Objections on Appeal: Part I

This article reviews the tight rules that govern the appealability of general and specific objections, sustained and overruled, which are anchored in the foundational principle of preservation.

By Elliott Scheinberg

15 minute read

October 14, 2021 | New York Law Journal

CPLR 213(2), Judicial Breach of Public Policy, Legislative Amendment Required: Part II

This two-part article provides a deep analysis of cases that ran afoul of legislative intent and held there is no statutory tolling of the limitations period when enforcement of a spousal agreement, which has been incorporated into and survived a judgment of divorce, is initiated by motion rather than by plenary action; effectively, thereby indefinitely extending the time to enforce.

By Elliott Scheinberg

14 minute read

October 13, 2021 | New York Law Journal

CPLR 213(2), Judicial Breach of Public Policy, Legislative Amendment Required: Part I

This two-part article provides a deep analysis of cases that ran afoul of legislative intent and held there is no statutory tolling of the limitations period when enforcement of a spousal agreement, which has been incorporated into and survived a judgment of divorce, is initiated by motion rather than by plenary action; effectively, thereby indefinitely extending the time to enforce.

By Elliott Scheinberg

15 minute read

September 09, 2021 | New York Law Journal

CPLR 2104 vs. DRL §236B(3): A 37-Year Departmental Procedural Rift, Part III

Part I and II of this three-part column explored a departmental rift and a recent decision as to whether the method for settling cases by way of on-the-record-open-court agreements supersedes the three procedural requirements in Domestic Relations Law §236B(3) to create enforceable marital agreements. This final part addresses: unacknowledged agreements; the lack of the nonapplicability of DRL §236B(3) to post judgment agreements; and agreements between married parties and fertility clinics.

By Elliott Scheinberg

8 minute read

August 04, 2021 | New York Law Journal

CPLR 2104 vs. DRL §236B(3): A 37-Year Departmental Procedural Rift, Part II

Part I of this three-part column reviewed a recent decision in an old departmental schism as to whether the time-honored method for settling cases by way of on-the-record-open-court agreements supersedes the three procedural requirements in Domestic Relations Law §236B(3) to create enforceable marital agreements. Part II studies the history of the departmental rift and examines the dissent in that recent decision.

By Elliott Scheinberg

10 minute read