Flynn v. Flynn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flynn v. Flynn

124 A.D.2d 699, 508 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62005

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

DecidedNovember 17, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 699 (Flynn v. Flynn) 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

Flynn v. Flynn, 124 A.D.2d 699, 508 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62005 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Special Term properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the order entered October 13, 1982. That order was superseded by the judgment of divorce (see, Schapiro v Schapiro, 27 AD2d 667) and was of no effect after entry of the judgment (see, Mittman v Mittman, 263 App Div 384; Kellogg v Stoddard, 89 App Div 137). His further argument that the failure to comply with what he claims to have been an invalid pendente lite order had a prejudicial impact on the trial court’s custody determination provides no basis for vacating the pendente lite order. Such an argument might have been cognizable on direct appeal from the judgment. However, by order dated January 24, 1986, the defendant’s appeal from the judgment was dismissed for failure to perfect the same. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Special Term properly denied the defendant’s motion to vacate the order entered October 13, 1982. That order was superseded by the judgment of divorce (see, Schapiro v Schapiro, 27 AD2d 667) and was of no effect after entry of the judgment (see, Mittman v Mittman, 263 App Div 384; Kellogg v Stoddard, 89 App Div 137). His further argument that the failure to comply with what he claims to have been an invalid pendente lite order had a prejudicial impact on the trial court’s custody determination provides no basis for vacating the pendente lite order. Such an argument might have been cognizable on direct appeal from the judgment. However, by order dated January 24, 1986, the defendant’s appeal from the judgment was dismissed for failure to perfect the same. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 699, 508 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62005, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flynn-v-flynn-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack