Bordas v. Bordas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bordas v. Bordas

134 A.D.3d 660, 19 N.Y.S.3d 763

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 2, 2015

Docket2014-06425

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 134 A.D.3d 660 (Bordas v. Bordas) 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

Bordas v. Bordas, 134 A.D.3d 660, 19 N.Y.S.3d 763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Paul I. Marx, J.), dated April 17, 2014. The order, in effect, dismissed the defendant’s motion with respect to certain life insurance and annuity accounts on the ground that the action had abated.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff’s death, which occurred shortly after the parties executed a pretrial stipulation with respect to the grounds for divorce, abated the instant action for a divorce and ancillary relief (see generally Cornell v Cornell, 7 NY2d 164, 169 [1959]; King v Kline, 65 AD3d 431 [2009]; Flaherty v Lynch, 292 AD2d 340 [2002]; Matter of Forgione, 237 AD2d 438 [1997]; Sperber v Schwartz, 139 AD2d 640 [1988]; Davis v Davis, 75 AD2d 861 [1980], affd 52 NY2d 850 [1981]), divesting the court of jurisdiction and necessitating dismissal of the defendant’s motion (see Davis v Davis, 75 AD2d at 861-862; King v Kline, 65 AD3d 431 [2009]; Flaherty v Lynch, 292 AD2d 340 [2002]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the stipulation was not the equivalent of a final adjudication of the substantive rights of the parties and, therefore, did not entitle the parties to have a final judgment of divorce entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the stipulation (see Matter of Alfieri, 203 AD2d 562 [1994]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit (see id.). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Paul I. Marx, J.), dated April 17, 2014. The order, in effect, dismissed the defendant’s motion with respect to certain life insurance and annuity accounts on the ground that the action had abated.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff’s death, which occurred shortly after the parties executed a pretrial stipulation with respect to the grounds for divorce, abated the instant action for a divorce and ancillary relief (see generally Cornell v Cornell, 7 NY2d 164, 169 [1959]; King v Kline, 65 AD3d 431 [2009]; Flaherty v Lynch, 292 AD2d 340 [2002]; Matter of Forgione, 237 AD2d 438 [1997]; Sperber v Schwartz, 139 AD2d 640 [1988]; Davis v Davis, 75 AD2d 861 [1980], affd 52 NY2d 850 [1981]), divesting the court of jurisdiction and necessitating dismissal of the defendant’s motion (see Davis v Davis, 75 AD2d at 861-862; King v Kline, 65 AD3d 431 [2009]; Flaherty v Lynch, 292 AD2d 340 [2002]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the stipulation was not the equivalent of a final adjudication of the substantive rights of the parties and, therefore, did not entitle the parties to have a final judgment of divorce entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the stipulation (see Matter of Alfieri, 203 AD2d 562 [1994]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit (see id.). Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Cohen and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

134 A.D.3d 660, 19 N.Y.S.3d 763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bordas-v-bordas-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack