Kaufman v. Kaufman

2020 NY Slip Op 05730
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 14, 2020
DocketIndex No. 4893/11
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 05730 (Kaufman v. Kaufman) 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
Kaufman v. Kaufman, 2020 NY Slip Op 05730 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Kaufman v Kaufman (2020 NY Slip Op 05730)
Kaufman v Kaufman
2020 NY Slip Op 05730
Decided on October 14, 2020
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on October 14, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
HECTOR D. LASALLE
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2014-09135
(Index No. 4893/11)

[*1]Kim A. Kaufman, respondent,

v

Glenn B. Kaufman, appellant.


Lieberman & LeBovit, Yorktown Heights, NY (Mitchell P. Lieberman and Rottenstreich & Ettinger, LLP of counsel), for appellant.

Kramer Kozek LLP, White Plains, NY (Deborah Sherman of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Lawrence H. Ecker, J.), dated July 7, 2014. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to reargue her prior motion for an award of interim counsel fees, which had been denied in an order of the same court dated April 4, 2014, and, upon reargument, in effect, vacated that portion of the order dated April 4, 2014, and thereupon granted the plaintiff's prior motion for an award of interim counsel fees to the extent of awarding her the sum of $750,000.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with entry of the judgment in the action (see Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are brought up for review on the related appeal and cross appeal from the judgment (see CPLR 5501[a][1]; Kaufman v Kaufman, _____ AD3d _____ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2016-07969; decided herewith]).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., MALTESE, LASALLE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

In re Aho
347 N.E.2d 647 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 05730, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kaufman-v-kaufman-nyappdiv-2020.