Hladczuk v. Epstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hladczuk v. Epstein

98 A.D.2d 990, 470 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21339

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 990 (Hladczuk v. Epstein) 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

Hladczuk v. Epstein, 98 A.D.2d 990, 470 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21339 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff for arrears in child support on the ground that the defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s motion. A verified pleading is the equivalent of a responsive affidavit for purposes of a motion for summary judgment (CPLR 105, subd [t]; see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3212:15, p 436; cf. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v Solow, 51 NY2d 870, 872). Therefore, defendant’s counsel properly relied upon the affirmative defenses in his verified answer in which he alleged that the plaintiff removed the children from Buffalo, New York, to Knoxville, Tennessee, without his knowledge or consent and failed to adequately notify him of the children’s address and telephone number as required by a provision in a property settlement agreement incorporated but not merged in the divorce decree. Thus, defendant has raised triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. Moreover, at the time the motion was argued there was outstanding an order requiring a hearing to determine whether defendant had been denied his right to visitation (see Matter of Lee v De Haven, 87 AD2d 576; Abraham v Abraham, 44 AD2d 675, 676). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cook, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and motion denied. Memorandum: Special Term erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff for arrears in child support on the ground that the defendant failed to respond to plaintiff’s motion. A verified pleading is the equivalent of a responsive affidavit for purposes of a motion for summary judgment (CPLR 105, subd [t]; see Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, CPLR C3212:15, p 436; cf. Bethlehem Steel Corp. v Solow, 51 NY2d 870, 872). Therefore, defendant’s counsel properly relied upon the affirmative defenses in his verified answer in which he alleged that the plaintiff removed the children from Buffalo, New York, to Knoxville, Tennessee, without his knowledge or consent and failed to adequately notify him of the children’s address and telephone number as required by a provision in a property settlement agreement incorporated but not merged in the divorce decree. Thus, defendant has raised triable issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. Moreover, at the time the motion was argued there was outstanding an order requiring a hearing to determine whether defendant had been denied his right to visitation (see Matter of Lee v De Haven, 87 AD2d 576; Abraham v Abraham, 44 AD2d 675, 676). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Cook, J. — summary judgment.) Present — Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 990, 470 N.Y.S.2d 211, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hladczuk-v-epstein-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack