Cangro v. Cangro

288 A.D.2d 417, 733 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11366
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 26, 2001
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 417 (Cangro v. Cangro) 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
Cangro v. Cangro, 288 A.D.2d 417, 733 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11366 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Ponterio, J.), dated August 30, 2000, which denied her motion, in effect, for reargument and, sua sponte, enjoined her from initiating any action or making any motions for claims arising from the matrimonial action without permission of the appropriate administrative judge.

Ordered that the plaintiffs notice of appeal from so much of the order as, sua sponte, enjoined her from initiating any action or making any motions is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see, CPLR 5701 [c]); and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the order as denied the motion, in effect, for reargument is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, CPLR 2221; Ramilo v 32-78 & 80 Steinway St. Realty, 256 AD2d 505; Rivera v Cambridge Mut. Ins. Co., 136 AD2d 688); and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court [418]*418properly enjoined, the plaintiff from initiating any action or making any motions based on claims arising from the matrimonial action without the prior permission of the appropriate administrative judge (see, Mancini v Mancini, 269 AD2d 366; Berson v Berson, 265 AD2d 439, 440; Matter of Shreve v Shreve, 229 AD2d 1005). Krausman, J. P., Friedmann, Florio and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Persaud v. Gordon-Steele
2025 NY Slip Op 51326(U) (New York State Court of Claims, 2025)
Cangro v. Maranzos
2018 NY Slip Op 2886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Cangro v. Marangos
132 A.D.3d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Cangro v. Rosado
111 A.D.3d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Plummer v. Plummer
25 A.D.3d 558 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
288 A.D.2d 417, 733 N.Y.S.2d 899, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11366, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cangro-v-cangro-nyappdiv-2001.