Schill v. Schill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Schill v. Schill

42 A.D.3d 443, 838 N.Y.S.2d 447

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

DecidedJuly 10, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 42 A.D.3d 443 (Schill v. Schill) 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

Schill v. Schill, 42 A.D.3d 443, 838 N.Y.S.2d 447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 6, 1999, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.) dated May 22, 2006, as denied his motion, in effect, to resettle the substantive or decretal provisions of an order dated March 4, 2002.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The order appealed from denied, inter alia, the plaintiffs motion, which was denominated as one to modify and amend an order dated March 4, 2002, but was actually one to resettle the substantive or decretal provisions of the order. The appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying resettlement of the substantive or decretal provisions of a prior order (see Connolly v Connolly, 282 AD2d 703 [2001]; Scopelliti v Scopelliti, 250 AD2d 752 [1998]). Miller, J.E, Crane, Ritter and Lifson, 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 August 6, 1999, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Balkin, J.) dated May 22, 2006, as denied his motion, in effect, to resettle the substantive or decretal provisions of an order dated March 4, 2002.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, with costs.

The order appealed from denied, inter alia, the plaintiffs motion, which was denominated as one to modify and amend an order dated March 4, 2002, but was actually one to resettle the substantive or decretal provisions of the order. The appeal must be dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying resettlement of the substantive or decretal provisions of a prior order (see Connolly v Connolly, 282 AD2d 703 [2001]; Scopelliti v Scopelliti, 250 AD2d 752 [1998]). Miller, J.E, Crane, Ritter and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.3d 443, 838 N.Y.S.2d 447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schill-v-schill-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack