Barrera v. Barrera

190 A.D.2d 667, 594 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 792
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 1, 1993
StatusPublished
Cited by4 cases

This text of 190 A.D.2d 667 (Barrera v. Barrera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Barrera v. Barrera, 190 A.D.2d 667, 594 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Opinion

— In a proceeding, inter alia, to modify the child support provisions of a judgment of divorce entered [668]*668in the State of Florida, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Nahman, J.), dated December 5, 1990, which (1) denied her motion for an upward modification of child support, and (2) granted the respondent’s cross motion (a) to dismiss the proceeding pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (4), (b) for visitation with the infant issue of the marriage from July 14, 1991, through July 28, 1991, and (c) for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (b), in the amount of $500.

Ordered that the order is modified, as a matter of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof awarding sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 (b), and substituting therefor a provision denying the branch of the cross motion which was for sanctions in its entirety; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

CPLR 3211 (a) (4) vests a court with broad discretion in considering whether to dismiss an action on the ground that another action is pending between the same parties based on the same cause of action (see, Whitney v Whitney, 57 NY2d 731, 732). Under the circumstances, dismissal was a proper exercise of discretion. However, the sanction awarded pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 was improper, since the appellant’s motion was not frivolous (see, 22 NYCRR 130-1.2; see also, Nowak v Walden, 187 AD2d 418).

We have considered the appellant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Rosenbaum v. Boulder Ridge Homeowners Ass'n
283 A.D.2d 477 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Kumar v. Brown
269 A.D.2d 360 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Eileen W. v. Mario A.
169 Misc. 2d 484 (NYC Family Court, 1996)
Gossett v. Firestar Affiliates, Inc.
224 A.D.2d 487 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 A.D.2d 667, 594 N.Y.S.2d 619, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 792, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barrera-v-barrera-nyappdiv-1993.