Gamba v. Gamba

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gamba v. Gamba

253 A.D.2d 784, 677 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9637

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 253 A.D.2d 784 (Gamba v. Gamba) 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

Gamba v. Gamba, 253 A.D.2d 784, 677 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated September 30, 1992, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated January 15, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an income execution and certain financial provisions set forth in the judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined, the former [785]*785husband’s unsubstantiated allegations that he did not read or understand the papers which he executed, and that he was served with an incomplete copy of the parties’ judgment of divorce, are refuted by the documentary evidence in the record as well as by common sense and experience. Accordingly, the court properly determined that the former husband failed to sustain his heavy burden of demonstrating that the judgment of divorce was procured through the alleged fraud and misconduct on the part of the former wife and her former counsel (see generally, Longa v 17 Battery Place N. Assocs., 169 AD2d 520; Marine Midland Bank v Hall, 74 AD2d 729; Wallace v Wallace, 52 AD2d 945; Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Commercial Door & Hardware, 51 AD2d 362). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Friedmann, 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 September 30, 1992, the defendant former husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rigler, J.), dated January 15, 1998, which denied his motion to vacate an income execution and certain financial provisions set forth in the judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

As the Supreme Court correctly determined, the former [785]*785husband’s unsubstantiated allegations that he did not read or understand the papers which he executed, and that he was served with an incomplete copy of the parties’ judgment of divorce, are refuted by the documentary evidence in the record as well as by common sense and experience. Accordingly, the court properly determined that the former husband failed to sustain his heavy burden of demonstrating that the judgment of divorce was procured through the alleged fraud and misconduct on the part of the former wife and her former counsel (see generally, Longa v 17 Battery Place N. Assocs., 169 AD2d 520; Marine Midland Bank v Hall, 74 AD2d 729; Wallace v Wallace, 52 AD2d 945; Manufacturers & Traders Trust Co. v Commercial Door & Hardware, 51 AD2d 362). O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Joy and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

253 A.D.2d 784, 677 N.Y.S.2d 610, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gamba-v-gamba-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack