Feehan v. Feehan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Feehan v. Feehan

166 A.D.2d 411, 561 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11765

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

DecidedOctober 1, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 166 A.D.2d 411 (Feehan v. Feehan) 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

Feehan v. Feehan, 166 A.D.2d 411, 561 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated May 22, 1989, which denied her application for reargument of a prior application, inter alia, for an increase in child support fixed by a separation agreement which was not merged into a judgment of divorce, dated December 21, 1982.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

It is well settled that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, City of White Plains v Deruvo, 159 AD2d 534; Huttner v McDaid, 151 AD2d 547). In any event, the record supports the Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; see also, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210; Matter of Ladner v Iarussi, 92 AD2d 895). Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the plaintiff from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated May 22, 1989, which denied her application for reargument of a prior application, inter alia, for an increase in child support fixed by a separation agreement which was not merged into a judgment of divorce, dated December 21, 1982.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

It is well settled that no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see, City of White Plains v Deruvo, 159 AD2d 534; Huttner v McDaid, 151 AD2d 547). In any event, the record supports the Supreme Court’s exercise of discretion in denying the plaintiff’s application (see, Matter of Brescia v Fitts, 56 NY2d 132; see also, Matter of Boden v Boden, 42 NY2d 210; Matter of Ladner v Iarussi, 92 AD2d 895). Kooper, J. P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

166 A.D.2d 411, 561 N.Y.S.2d 142, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/feehan-v-feehan-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack