Leech v. Murphy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Leech v. Murphy

70 A.D.3d 651, 892 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 70 A.D.3d 651 (Leech v. Murphy) 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

Leech v. Murphy, 70 A.D.3d 651, 892 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 11, 2005, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J), dated March 12, 2009, which denied his motion to rescind and vacate so much of a so-ordered stipulation dated February 22, 2007, as purported to modify the child support provisions and related obligations set forth in the parties’ judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion to rescind and vacate so much of a so-ordered stipulation dated February 22, 2007, as purported to modify the child support provisions and related obligations as set forth in the parties’ judgment of divorce dated October 11, 2005 (see generally Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879 [1995]; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO [State of New York], 223 AD2d 890, 892 [1996]; Matter of Snyder-Plax v American Arbitration Assn., 196 AD2d 872, 874 [1993]; see also Howe v Howe, 68 AD3d 38 [2009]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 11, 2005, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sher, J), dated March 12, 2009, which denied his motion to rescind and vacate so much of a so-ordered stipulation dated February 22, 2007, as purported to modify the child support provisions and related obligations set forth in the parties’ judgment of divorce.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying his motion to rescind and vacate so much of a so-ordered stipulation dated February 22, 2007, as purported to modify the child support provisions and related obligations as set forth in the parties’ judgment of divorce dated October 11, 2005 (see generally Kiker v Nassau County, 85 NY2d 879 [1995]; Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO [State of New York], 223 AD2d 890, 892 [1996]; Matter of Snyder-Plax v American Arbitration Assn., 196 AD2d 872, 874 [1993]; see also Howe v Howe, 68 AD3d 38 [2009]).

In light of this determination, we need not reach the defendant’s remaining contentions. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 651, 892 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/leech-v-murphy-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack