Domestic Relations Law § 177 has been repealed, and replaced by Domestic Relations Law § 255, which was signed into law on July 11, 2009. It becomes effective 90 days after the date it was signed into law and applies to all actions in which judgment has not been entered as of the effective date. (See Laws of 2009, Ch 143)
Domestic Relations Law § 255, subdivision 1 provides that prior to signing a judgment of divorce or separation, or a judgment annulling a marriage or declaring the nullity of a void marriage, the court must ensure that both parties have been notified, at such time and by such means as the court determines, that once the judgment is signed, a party thereto may or may not be eligible to be covered under the other party's health insurance plan, depending on the terms of the plan. In the case of a defaulting defendant, service upon the defendant, simultaneous with the service of the summons, of a notice indicating that once the judgment is signed, a party thereto may or may not be eligible to be covered under the other party's health insurance plan, depending on the terms of the plan, shall be deemed sufficient notice to a defaulting defendant. (Go to http://www.nysdivorce.com to download a suggested Notice of Possible Loss of Eligibility For Health Care Coverage)
Domestic Relations Law § 255, subdivision 2 provides that if the parties have entered into a stipulation of settlement or agreement, on or after the effective date of Section 255, resolving all of the issues between the parties, the stipulation of settlement or agreement must contain a provision relating to the health care coverage of each party. The provision must either: (a) provide for the future coverage of each party, or (b) state that each party is aware that he or she will no longer be covered by the other party's health insurance plan and that each party shall be responsible for his or her own health insurance coverage, and may be entitled to purchase health insurance on his or her own through a COBRA option, if available. The requirements subdivision 2 may not be waived by either party or counsel. In the event that it is not complied with, the court must require compliance and may grant a thirty day continuance to afford the parties an opportunity to procure their own health insurance coverage. (Go to http://www.nysdivorce.com to download a suggested Agreement-Stipulation Provision for Compliance with Domestic Relations Law § 255)
Referrals to New York State attorneys. The Lawyer Referral and Information Service is a public service of the New York State Bar Association that provides ...
Đăng ký:
Đăng Nhận xét (Atom)
Bài đăng phổ biến
-
Provisions in Settlement Agreement Which Govern Award of Attorney's Fees, Rather than Statutory Provisions, Control. In Berns v Halberst...
-
The Cultural Property Advisory Committee will be holding public sessions on October 12 and October 14, 2010 to consider renewing the cultura...
-
For what its worth, the BG&S website has some articles I've authored, each of which should have been published by now in "The S...
-
The need to renew previously made requests has been in the news recently with lots of reminders that if you don't a request to be on the...
-
I have just turned the magic age of 48. Getting a bit more grey, having a few more excuse me "sirs" thrown my way pauses me to th...
-
In People v Helmer ( 2009 NY Slip Op 04830 4th Dept 6/12/09) the sole issue was whether the victim was a stranger to defendant for purpose...
-
I'm living my dream. When I told my friends five years ago where I was moving they recommended I see a therapist. I escaped the big city...
-
Judge Nelson Roman, Deputy Mayor Carol Robles-Roman, Is Approved For Seat in Southern District CourtSenate Committee Approves Roman for Southern District By Mike Paquette New York Law Journal March 4, 2013 LINK Cover Story: Hispanic Power ...
-
Let us thank the American Bar Association for giving the green light late last year to allow the corporations and corrupt TARP receiving ban...
-
re-posted from Parentadvocates.org LINK The subtitle of the article on the July 29, 2012 New York Post: "Judges' pals cashing in...
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét