Mirza v. Mirza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mirza v. Mirza

248 A.D.2d 447, 668 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2305

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 447 (Mirza v. Mirza) 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

Mirza v. Mirza, 248 A.D.2d 447, 668 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2305 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 20, 1995, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated January 9, 1997, which denied her motion to vacate the judgment of divorce entered upon her default in appearing for trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the former wife’s motion to vacate the judgment of divorce, which was entered upon her default (see, Baruch v Baruch, 224 AD2d 649). The former wife failed to establish that her failure to appear for trial was anything but willful (see, Sayagh v Sayagh, 205 AD2d 678; Formichella v Formichella, 134 AD2d 481; see also, P & K Marble v Pearce, 168 AD2d 439).

Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, 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 July 20, 1995, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Milano, J.), dated January 9, 1997, which denied her motion to vacate the judgment of divorce entered upon her default in appearing for trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the former wife’s motion to vacate the judgment of divorce, which was entered upon her default (see, Baruch v Baruch, 224 AD2d 649). The former wife failed to establish that her failure to appear for trial was anything but willful (see, Sayagh v Sayagh, 205 AD2d 678; Formichella v Formichella, 134 AD2d 481; see also, P & K Marble v Pearce, 168 AD2d 439).

Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 447, 668 N.Y.S.2d 928, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mirza-v-mirza-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack