Perrelli v. Perrelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Perrelli v. Perrelli

284 A.D.2d 517, 727 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6832

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

DecidedJune 25, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 284 A.D.2d 517 (Perrelli v. Perrelli) 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

Perrelli v. Perrelli, 284 A.D.2d 517, 727 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6832 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), dated December 8, 2000, which, inter alia, denied his cross motion to vacate a judgment of divorce of the same court (Sklaver, J.H.O.), dated March 7, 2000.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Judicial Hearing Officer had authority to enter the judgment of divorce, since an order of reference designating him to hear and determine all issues was made upon consent of the parties (see, CPLR 4317 [a]; cf., McCormack v McCormack, 174 AD2d 612).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Ritter, J. P., McGinity, Smith and Cozier, 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 from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Sweeny, J.), dated December 8, 2000, which, inter alia, denied his cross motion to vacate a judgment of divorce of the same court (Sklaver, J.H.O.), dated March 7, 2000.

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

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Judicial Hearing Officer had authority to enter the judgment of divorce, since an order of reference designating him to hear and determine all issues was made upon consent of the parties (see, CPLR 4317 [a]; cf., McCormack v McCormack, 174 AD2d 612).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review. Ritter, J. P., McGinity, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 517, 727 N.Y.S.2d 622, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6832, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/perrelli-v-perrelli-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack