Grant v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Grant v. Grant

37 A.D.3d 167, 830 N.Y.S.2d 527

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 37 A.D.3d 167 (Grant v. Grant) 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

Grant v. Grant, 37 A.D.3d 167, 830 N.Y.S.2d 527 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered on or about September 29, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of divorce, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant, who explicitly consented to the divorce on the basis of plaintiffs testimony at the 2002 inquest to which the parties stipulated, should be equitably estopped from taking an inconsistent position at this late juncture (see Dominguez v Dominguez, 255 AD2d 121 [1998]). In addition, although it appears that defendant, at the time of the inquest, was aware of the purported new evidence he now claims demonstrates the falsity of plaintiff’s testimony at the inquest, he offers no explanation for not having presented such evidence at the inquest (see Calloway v Calloway, 17 AD3d 286 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered on or about September 29, 2005, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate a judgment of divorce, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant, who explicitly consented to the divorce on the basis of plaintiffs testimony at the 2002 inquest to which the parties stipulated, should be equitably estopped from taking an inconsistent position at this late juncture (see Dominguez v Dominguez, 255 AD2d 121 [1998]). In addition, although it appears that defendant, at the time of the inquest, was aware of the purported new evidence he now claims demonstrates the falsity of plaintiff’s testimony at the inquest, he offers no explanation for not having presented such evidence at the inquest (see Calloway v Calloway, 17 AD3d 286 [2005]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Andrias, Friedman, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 167, 830 N.Y.S.2d 527, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/grant-v-grant-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack