Gunnison v. Gunnison

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gunnison v. Gunnison

10 A.D.3d 592, 781 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10606

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

DecidedSeptember 7, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 592 (Gunnison v. Gunnison) 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

Gunnison v. Gunnison, 10 A.D.3d 592, 781 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to collect $652,544 in alimony arrears pursuant to a judgment of the Jefferson Family Court, State of Kentucky, dated August 31, 2001, entered upon the failure of the defendant Herbert F. Gunnison to appear or answer, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated July 15, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment, and, in effect, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., doing business as Citigroup Private Bank, Citibank Private Bank, and Citi Trust Services.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and, in effect, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff failed to show or at least raise a triable issue of fact whether she properly acquired jurisdiction over the defendant Herbert F. Gunnison (cf. Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 78 NY2d 572 [1991], rearg denied 79 NY2d 916 [1992], cert denied 506 US 823 [1992]).

[593]*593The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to collect $652,544 in alimony arrears pursuant to a judgment of the Jefferson Family Court, State of Kentucky, dated August 31, 2001, entered upon the failure of the defendant Herbert F. Gunnison to appear or answer, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated July 15, 2003, which denied her motion for summary judgment, and, in effect, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs to the respondents Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., doing business as Citigroup Private Bank, Citibank Private Bank, and Citi Trust Services.

The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and, in effect, upon searching the record, granted summary judgment to the defendants dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff failed to show or at least raise a triable issue of fact whether she properly acquired jurisdiction over the defendant Herbert F. Gunnison (cf. Fiore v Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 78 NY2d 572 [1991], rearg denied 79 NY2d 916 [1992], cert denied 506 US 823 [1992]).

[593]*593The plaintiff’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 592, 781 N.Y.S.2d 454, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gunnison-v-gunnison-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack