Martin v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Martin v. Martin

248 A.D.2d 951, 670 N.Y.S.2d 164

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 951 (Martin v. Martin) 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

Martin v. Martin, 248 A.D.2d 951, 670 N.Y.S.2d 164 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The appeal from the order entered January 25, 1996 is dismissed because that order was superseded by an order entered March 6, 1996 (see, Matter of Eric D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051; 10 CarmodyWait 2d, NY Prac § 70:28). The March 6th order was itself superseded by an order entered May 10, 1996. Although the May 10th order purports to resettle the March 6th order, “Resettlement is not to be used to effect a substantive change in or to amplify the prior decision of the court” (Barretta v Webb Corp., 181 AD2d 1018, Iv dismissed 80 NY2d 892; see, Tidball v Tidball, 108 AD2d 957, 958; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 566). The May 10th order effects several substantive changes in the March 6th order and is in fact an amended order. “No appeal lies from an original order that has been superceded by an amended order” (Matter of Eric D., supra, at 1051). No appeal has been taken from the May 10th order, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review it (see, Matter of Winans v Manz, 54 AD2d 597). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J. — Support.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Appeal unanimously dismissed without costs. Memorandum: The appeal from the order entered January 25, 1996 is dismissed because that order was superseded by an order entered March 6, 1996 (see, Matter of Eric D. [appeal No. 1], 162 AD2d 1051; 10 CarmodyWait 2d, NY Prac § 70:28). The March 6th order was itself superseded by an order entered May 10, 1996. Although the May 10th order purports to resettle the March 6th order, “Resettlement is not to be used to effect a substantive change in or to amplify the prior decision of the court” (Barretta v Webb Corp., 181 AD2d 1018, Iv dismissed 80 NY2d 892; see, Tidball v Tidball, 108 AD2d 957, 958; Foley v Roche, 68 AD2d 558, 566). The May 10th order effects several substantive changes in the March 6th order and is in fact an amended order. “No appeal lies from an original order that has been superceded by an amended order” (Matter of Eric D., supra, at 1051). No appeal has been taken from the May 10th order, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to review it (see, Matter of Winans v Manz, 54 AD2d 597). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J. — Support.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 951, 670 N.Y.S.2d 164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-martin-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack