Brennan v. Brennan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Brennan v. Brennan

221 A.D.2d 494, 634 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11970

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

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 221 A.D.2d 494 (Brennan v. Brennan) 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

Brennan v. Brennan, 221 A.D.2d 494, 634 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11970 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated April 19, 1994, which, inter alia, awarded child support of $50 per week per child retroactive to February 17, 1987. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated April 12, 1994, which granted the motion for leave to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff demonstrated good cause to explain why a judgment was not settled or submitted within 60 days after the court’s memorandum decision in that her attorney had been suspended and then disbarred (see, 22 NYCRR 202.48 [a], [b]). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), dated April 19, 1994, which, inter alia, awarded child support of $50 per week per child retroactive to February 17, 1987. The appeal brings up for review an order of the same court, dated April 12, 1994, which granted the motion for leave to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting the plaintiff’s motion to enter a judgment nunc pro tunc. The plaintiff demonstrated good cause to explain why a judgment was not settled or submitted within 60 days after the court’s memorandum decision in that her attorney had been suspended and then disbarred (see, 22 NYCRR 202.48 [a], [b]). Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Gold-stein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

221 A.D.2d 494, 634 N.Y.S.2d 400, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11970, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brennan-v-brennan-nyappdiv-1995.