Marinello v. Marinello

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Marinello v. Marinello

125 A.D.2d 555, 509 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62849

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 125 A.D.2d 555 (Marinello v. Marinello) 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

Marinello v. Marinello, 125 A.D.2d 555, 509 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62849 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 17, 1983, the defendant appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated March 12, 1986, as directed that the marital residence be partitioned and sold pursuant to RPAPL article 9.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent with the judgment of divorce.

By directing that the marital residence be partitioned and sold under RPAPL article 9, Special Term effectively modified the stipulation settling the action and the judgment entered upon it, which provided that the wife would purchase the husband’s interest in the residence at a price to be established by appraisal. Neither party had requested such a modification, however, and in the absence of one of the "traditional” grounds for vacatur, e.g., fraud, duress, mistake or overreaching, none of which has been established or even alleged here, Special Term was powerless to effect it (see, De Jose v De Jose, 104 AD2d 629, affd 66 NY2d 804). It was error therefore to direct that the property be partitioned and sold. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, 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 17, 1983, the defendant appeals, as limited by her notice of appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Graci, J.), dated March 12, 1986, as directed that the marital residence be partitioned and sold pursuant to RPAPL article 9.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent with the judgment of divorce.

By directing that the marital residence be partitioned and sold under RPAPL article 9, Special Term effectively modified the stipulation settling the action and the judgment entered upon it, which provided that the wife would purchase the husband’s interest in the residence at a price to be established by appraisal. Neither party had requested such a modification, however, and in the absence of one of the "traditional” grounds for vacatur, e.g., fraud, duress, mistake or overreaching, none of which has been established or even alleged here, Special Term was powerless to effect it (see, De Jose v De Jose, 104 AD2d 629, affd 66 NY2d 804). It was error therefore to direct that the property be partitioned and sold. Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Niehoff and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 555, 509 N.Y.S.2d 630, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62849, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marinello-v-marinello-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack