Juhasz v. Juhasz

101 A.D.3d 1690, 955 N.Y.2d 792
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 21, 2012·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Memorandum: We conclude that Supreme Court properly denied that part of plaintiffs motion seeking the difference between pendente lite support paid during the pendency of the divorce action and the amounts of maintenance and child support that were ultimately awarded. Plaintiff’s contentions concerning retroactive support “were previously raised and decided against [her] or could have been raised on a prior appeal in this matter . . . ‘Therefore, reconsideration of these [contentions] is barred by the doctrine of law of the case’ ” (Matter of Suzuki-Peters v Peters, 37 AD3d 726 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 814 [2007], quoting Palumbo v Palumbo, 10 AD3d 680, 682 [2004], lv dismissed 3 NY3d 765 [2004]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Centra, Carni and Valentino, JJ.

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

Juhasz v. Juhasz, 101 A.D.3d 1690, 955 N.Y.2d 792 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

101 A.D.3d 1690 (Juhasz v. Juhasz) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Wilmington Sav. Fund Socy., FSB v. Gustafson
2025 NY Slip Op 03420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Iskalo Elec. Tower LLC v. Stantec Consulting Servs., Inc.
219 A.D.3d 1157 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Calabrese Bakeries, Inc. v. Rockland Bakery, Inc.
139 A.D.3d 1192 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
MURTAUGH, GAIL v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRO
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015