Burgos v. Burgos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Burgos v. Burgos

304 A.D.2d 475, 757 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250

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

DecidedApril 24, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 475 (Burgos v. Burgos) 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

Burgos v. Burgos, 304 A.D.2d 475, 757 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2002, which granted plaintiffs motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report recommending that the parties’ judgment of divorce be vacated on the ground of fraud, and denied defendant’s cross motion to, inter alia, reject the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record amply supports the Special Referee’s findings (see Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135, 135-136 [1997]) that for the purpose of obtaining an uncontested divorce, defendant went to a lawyer with a woman who impersonated plaintiff and who forged plaintiff’s signatures on the documents underlying the divorce judgment (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2002, which granted plaintiffs motion to confirm the Special Referee’s report recommending that the parties’ judgment of divorce be vacated on the ground of fraud, and denied defendant’s cross motion to, inter alia, reject the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The record amply supports the Special Referee’s findings (see Nager v Panadis, 238 AD2d 135, 135-136 [1997]) that for the purpose of obtaining an uncontested divorce, defendant went to a lawyer with a woman who impersonated plaintiff and who forged plaintiff’s signatures on the documents underlying the divorce judgment (CPLR 5015 [a] [3]). We have considered and rejected defendant’s other arguments. Concur — Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Williams and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 475, 757 N.Y.S.2d 733, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/burgos-v-burgos-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack