Coyle v. Coyle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coyle v. Coyle

24 A.D.3d 602, 805 N.Y.S.2d 838

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

DecidedDecember 19, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 24 A.D.3d 602 (Coyle v. Coyle) 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

Coyle v. Coyle, 24 A.D.3d 602, 805 N.Y.S.2d 838 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 14, 2004, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated May 25, 2004, as denied his motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt for failing to comply with certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to hold the plaintiff in civil contempt for her alleged failure to comply with certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement (see Vujovic v Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490 [2005]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated March 14, 2004, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McNulty, J.), dated May 25, 2004, as denied his motion to hold the plaintiff in contempt for failing to comply with certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion to hold the plaintiff in civil contempt for her alleged failure to comply with certain provisions of the parties’ stipulation of settlement (see Vujovic v Vujovic, 16 AD3d 490 [2005]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Schmidt, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

24 A.D.3d 602, 805 N.Y.S.2d 838, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coyle-v-coyle-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack