Mattwell v. Mattwell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mattwell v. Mattwell

220 A.D.2d 727, 633 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10637

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

DecidedOctober 30, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 220 A.D.2d 727 (Mattwell v. Mattwell) 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

Mattwell v. Mattwell, 220 A.D.2d 727, 633 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for the equitable distribution of marital property after the entry of a foreign judgment which dissolved the parties’ marriage, the former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated June 2, 1994, as denied his motion (1) to vacate the prior judgment of the same court dated January 3, 1992, and (2) to grant a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The economic issues implicated in the present matter were initially resolved after a trial and have been examined on appeal (see, Mattwell v Mattwell, 194 AD2d 715). The husband has failed to demonstrate his right to a second trial based on his alleged discovery of new evidence (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). The husband has failed to show that the evidence upon which his motion was based "could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, that it [was] likely to produce a different result, [or] that it [was] in the interests of substantial justice to grant the motion” (Cizler v Cizler, 19 AD2d 819, 819-820). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action for the equitable distribution of marital property after the entry of a foreign judgment which dissolved the parties’ marriage, the former husband appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (O’Brien, J.), dated June 2, 1994, as denied his motion (1) to vacate the prior judgment of the same court dated January 3, 1992, and (2) to grant a new trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The economic issues implicated in the present matter were initially resolved after a trial and have been examined on appeal (see, Mattwell v Mattwell, 194 AD2d 715). The husband has failed to demonstrate his right to a second trial based on his alleged discovery of new evidence (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]). The husband has failed to show that the evidence upon which his motion was based "could not have been discovered with reasonable diligence, that it [was] likely to produce a different result, [or] that it [was] in the interests of substantial justice to grant the motion” (Cizler v Cizler, 19 AD2d 819, 819-820). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

220 A.D.2d 727, 633 N.Y.S.2d 1000, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mattwell-v-mattwell-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack