Rabinovich v. Shevchenko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rabinovich v. Shevchenko

63 A.D.3d 1027, 880 N.Y.S.2d 572

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

DecidedJune 23, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 63 A.D.3d 1027 (Rabinovich v. Shevchenko) 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

Rabinovich v. Shevchenko, 63 A.D.3d 1027, 880 N.Y.S.2d 572 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated June 12, 2008, which denied his oral application for a downward modification of his pendente lite maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from did not determine a motion made on notice, and is therefore not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Steven L.Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v Computer Handlers Corp., 7 AD3d 613 [2004]; Johnson v Ladin, 7 AD3d 674, 675 [2004]; Stern v Stern, 273 AD2d 298, 299 [2000]; Cuffie v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 260 AD2d 423 [1999]). No motion for leave to appeal has been made, and under the circumstances, we decline to grant leave on our own motion (see Independence Constr. Corp. v AMOCO Constr. Corp., 33 AD3d 963 [2006]; Steven L.Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v Computer Handlers Corp., 7 AD3d 613 [2004]; Cuffie v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 260 AD2d 423 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Eng and Leventhal, 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 plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Blydenburgh, J.), dated June 12, 2008, which denied his oral application for a downward modification of his pendente lite maintenance obligation.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The order appealed from did not determine a motion made on notice, and is therefore not appealable as of right (see CPLR 5701 [a] [2]; Steven L.Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v Computer Handlers Corp., 7 AD3d 613 [2004]; Johnson v Ladin, 7 AD3d 674, 675 [2004]; Stern v Stern, 273 AD2d 298, 299 [2000]; Cuffie v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 260 AD2d 423 [1999]). No motion for leave to appeal has been made, and under the circumstances, we decline to grant leave on our own motion (see Independence Constr. Corp. v AMOCO Constr. Corp., 33 AD3d 963 [2006]; Steven L.Levitt & Assoc., P.C. v Computer Handlers Corp., 7 AD3d 613 [2004]; Cuffie v New York City Health & Hosps. Corp., 260 AD2d 423 [1999]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Eng and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

63 A.D.3d 1027, 880 N.Y.S.2d 572, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rabinovich-v-shevchenko-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack