Calloway v. Calloway

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calloway v. Calloway

17 A.D.3d 286, 792 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4504

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

DecidedApril 28, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 286 (Calloway v. Calloway) 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

Calloway v. Calloway, 17 A.D.3d 286, 792 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4504 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered October 16 and November 1, 2002, which denied defendant’s motions to vacate a marital agreement dated December 20, 1995, that was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce entered December 23, 1997, and to impose a constructive trust on certain Massachusetts properties allegedly owned by plaintiff and for damages, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In this postdivorce matrimonial action, the pro se defendant failed to explain properly why supposedly newly discovered evidence was not known at the time of prior postdivorce litigation in 2001, or to offer “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CFLR 2221 [e] [3]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura E. Drager, J.), entered October 16 and November 1, 2002, which denied defendant’s motions to vacate a marital agreement dated December 20, 1995, that was incorporated but not merged into a judgment of divorce entered December 23, 1997, and to impose a constructive trust on certain Massachusetts properties allegedly owned by plaintiff and for damages, unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs.

In this postdivorce matrimonial action, the pro se defendant failed to explain properly why supposedly newly discovered evidence was not known at the time of prior postdivorce litigation in 2001, or to offer “reasonable justification for the failure to present such facts on the prior motion” (CFLR 2221 [e] [3]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find them without merit. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Sullivan, Ellerin, Williams and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 286, 792 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4504, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calloway-v-calloway-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack