O'Sullivan v. O'Sullivan

206 A.D.2d 960, 614 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7666
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 15, 1994
StatusPublished
Cited by18 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 960 (O'Sullivan v. O'Sullivan) 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
O'Sullivan v. O'Sullivan, 206 A.D.2d 960, 614 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Opinion

Memorandum: Plaintiff waived his Statute of Limitations defense by failing to raise it in a timely manner (see, CPLR 3211 [e]; Matter of Augenblick v Town of Cortlandt, 66 NY2d 775, 777, rearg denied 67 NY2d 647; Itzkowitz v Town Bd., 139 AD2d 932). Plaintiff’s argument that the provisions of CPLR 3211 are inapplicable to this [961]*961proceeding, in reliance on Consentino v Sweeney (143 AD2d 971), is not properly before us because that argument is raised for the first time in plaintiffs reply brief. "The practice of raising a new substantive issue in a reply brief at a time when an adversary can no longer respond to it is improper” (People v Minota, 137 AD2d 837, 838, lv denied 71 NY2d 1030; see, State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v LiMauro, 103 AD2d 514, 521-522, affd 65 NY2d 369). In any event, plaintiff’s reliance on Consentino is misplaced because the facts of that case are distinguishable from those in this case. Plaintiff failed to raise the Statute of Limitations defense until after Supreme Court rendered its decision on defendant’s postjudgment application pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244 and, only then, in response to defendant’s motion to reargue. Thus, plaintiff’s failure to raise the defense in a timely manner deprived defendant of the opportunity to challenge its applicability (see, Szigyarto v Szigyarto, 64 NY2d 275, 280).

Lastly, plaintiff’s argument that a 6% interest rate is applicable to that portion of the arrears accruing prior to June 25, 1981 is advanced for the first time on appeal and thus, the argument is not preserved for review (see, Nemia v Nemia, 124 AD2d 407, Iv denied 69 NY2d 611). In any event, we conclude that the court properly awarded defendant interest on the judgment for arrears pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244. (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Nassau County, Yachnin, J.—Support.) Present—Green, J. P., Balio, Fallon, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

Robert Owen Lehman Found., Inc. v. Wien
2021 NY Slip Op 04799 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
Matter of Frontier Stone, LLC v. Town of Shelby
2019 NY Slip Op 5852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Stiegman v. Barden & Robeson Corp.
2018 NY Slip Op 4865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
Doolittle v. Nixon Peabody LLP
2017 NY Slip Op 8126 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
STUBBS, JOANNE N. v. CAPELLINI, III, JOHN A.
108 A.D.3d 1057 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Mesiti v. Mongiello
84 A.D.3d 1547 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People ex rel. Hinton v. Graham
66 A.D.3d 1402 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Turner v. Canale
15 A.D.3d 960 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
In re Yorimar K.-M.
309 A.D.2d 1148 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Gowin v. Town of Pulteney
294 A.D.2d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Duke v. Eastman Kodak Co.
248 A.D.2d 990 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
In re Waterfront Commission
245 A.D.2d 63 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Greene v. Xerox Corp.
244 A.D.2d 877 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Schulz v. New York State Executive
233 A.D.2d 43 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
DeVito v. Johnson Newspaper Corp.
237 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Fishman v. Beach
237 A.D.2d 705 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Clay Board of Assessors
208 A.D.2d 170 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Kolbenheyer v. KolbenHeyer
209 A.D.2d 383 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
206 A.D.2d 960, 614 N.Y.S.2d 828, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7666, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osullivan-v-osullivan-nyappdiv-1994.