Lurie v. Lurie

101 A.D.3d 1429, 955 N.Y.2d 537
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Lurie v. Lurie. Read the opinion of the Court — 94 A.D.3d 1376

Opinion

Malone Jr., J.

To the extent that plaintiff challenges Supreme Court’s distribution of the bank accounts at issue, the record supports the court’s determination (see Fields v Fields, 15 NY3d 158, 170 [2010]; Unger-Matusik v Matusik, 276 AD2d 936, 937 [2000]). To the extent that plaintiff challenges that portion of the court’s order that denied reargument, we note that “no appeal lies from the denial of a motion to reargue” (Cheney v Cheney, 86 AD3d 833, 838 [2011] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see Pryba v Pryba, 70 AD3d 1109, 1109 n [2010]).

Mercure, J.P., Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Lurie v. Lurie, 101 A.D.3d 1429, 955 N.Y.2d 537 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

101 A.D.3d 1429 (Lurie v. Lurie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fields v. Fields
931 N.E.2d 1039 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
Pryba v. Pryba
70 A.D.3d 1109 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Cheney v. Cheney
86 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
Unger-Matusik v. Matusik
276 A.D.2d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)