Fleming v. Fleming

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fleming v. Fleming

285 A.D.2d 528, 727 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7439

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

DecidedJuly 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 528 (Fleming v. Fleming) 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

Fleming v. Fleming, 285 A.D.2d 528, 727 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7439 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), dated June 23, 2000, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon her default in appearing in the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon her default in appearing. The plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of showing that service upon the defendant in the Netherlands was proper (see, Wern v D’Alessandro, 219 AD2d 646; Powell v Powell, 114 AD2d 443).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Adams, 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 plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Amodeo, J.), dated June 23, 2000, which denied his motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon her default in appearing in the action.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the plaintiff’s motion for leave to enter a judgment against the defendant upon her default in appearing. The plaintiff failed to sustain his burden of showing that service upon the defendant in the Netherlands was proper (see, Wern v D’Alessandro, 219 AD2d 646; Powell v Powell, 114 AD2d 443).

The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Altman, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 528, 727 N.Y.S.2d 658, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fleming-v-fleming-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack