Norton v. Kenderes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Norton v. Kenderes

46 A.D.3d 644, 846 N.Y.S.2d 917

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

DecidedDecember 11, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 644 (Norton v. Kenderes) 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

Norton v. Kenderes, 46 A.D.3d 644, 846 N.Y.S.2d 917 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated May 5, 2006, as, in effect, upon reargument, directed the nonparty respondent IBM Corporation to transfer to the defendant his marital share of the plaintiffs retirement savings plan in order for the defendant to use these moneys to satisfy his debt for counsel fees to the intervenor-respondent Satz and Kirshon, EC.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The issue raised by the defendant on this appeal and the appeal from an order of the same court dated February 10, 2006 (see Norton v Kenderes, 46 AD3d 643 [2007] [decided herewith]) was determined in a prior order of the same court dated October 25, 2004. No appeal was taken from that order. Accordingly, the issue is not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated May 5, 2006, as, in effect, upon reargument, directed the nonparty respondent IBM Corporation to transfer to the defendant his marital share of the plaintiffs retirement savings plan in order for the defendant to use these moneys to satisfy his debt for counsel fees to the intervenor-respondent Satz and Kirshon, EC.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The issue raised by the defendant on this appeal and the appeal from an order of the same court dated February 10, 2006 (see Norton v Kenderes, 46 AD3d 643 [2007] [decided herewith]) was determined in a prior order of the same court dated October 25, 2004. No appeal was taken from that order. Accordingly, the issue is not properly before this Court. Rivera, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 644, 846 N.Y.S.2d 917, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/norton-v-kenderes-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack