Domino v. Domino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Domino v. Domino

52 A.D.3d 455, 857 N.Y.S.2d 920

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

DecidedJune 3, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.3d 455 (Domino v. Domino) 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

Domino v. Domino, 52 A.D.3d 455, 857 N.Y.S.2d 920 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered November 27, 2006, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to vacate, inter alia, those portions of a prior order of the same court entered November 12, 2004, upon the plaintiffs default in appearing, which permitted the defendant to bid to purchase the plaintiffs share of the marital home and valued the defendant’s share of the parties’ business, known as Domino Ambulette Service, at $51,376.

[456]*456Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to vacate, inter alia, certain portions of the order entered November 12, 2004 (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]; Lounsbury v Kiehl, 255 AD2d 774, 775 [1998]; cf. Long Is. Sav. Bank v Sutphen, 222 AD2d 660 [1995]; see also Pauk v Pauk, 277 AD2d 296, 297 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Santucci, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Nicolai, J.), entered November 27, 2006, as, in effect, granted that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to vacate, inter alia, those portions of a prior order of the same court entered November 12, 2004, upon the plaintiffs default in appearing, which permitted the defendant to bid to purchase the plaintiffs share of the marital home and valued the defendant’s share of the parties’ business, known as Domino Ambulette Service, at $51,376.

[456]*456Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court did not err in granting that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was, in effect, to vacate, inter alia, certain portions of the order entered November 12, 2004 (see Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]; Lounsbury v Kiehl, 255 AD2d 774, 775 [1998]; cf. Long Is. Sav. Bank v Sutphen, 222 AD2d 660 [1995]; see also Pauk v Pauk, 277 AD2d 296, 297 [2000]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Rivera, J.E, Santucci, Dickerson and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.3d 455, 857 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/domino-v-domino-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack