Foertsch v. Foertsch

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Foertsch v. Foertsch

187 A.D.2d 635, 591 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13221

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

DecidedNovember 23, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 635 (Foertsch v. Foertsch) 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

Foertsch v. Foertsch, 187 A.D.2d 635, 591 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13221 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 18, 1987, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated November 20, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to a determination made in an order dated September 4, 1990, denying the defendant’s motion to resettle the decretal paragraphs of a judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

No appeal lies from an order made upon reargument which adheres to the determination in an order denying a motion to resettle the decretal paragraphs of a judgment (see, Zagami v Zagami, 173 AD2d 698; Schanback v Schanback, 159 AD2d 498; Stockfield v Stockfield, 131 AD2d 834; Blume v Blume, 124 AD2d 771). Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 18, 1987, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated November 20, 1990, as, upon reargument, adhered to a determination made in an order dated September 4, 1990, denying the defendant’s motion to resettle the decretal paragraphs of a judgment.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

No appeal lies from an order made upon reargument which adheres to the determination in an order denying a motion to resettle the decretal paragraphs of a judgment (see, Zagami v Zagami, 173 AD2d 698; Schanback v Schanback, 159 AD2d 498; Stockfield v Stockfield, 131 AD2d 834; Blume v Blume, 124 AD2d 771). Lawrence, J. P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 635, 591 N.Y.S.2d 785, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13221, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/foertsch-v-foertsch-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack