Stovall v. Stovall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Stovall v. Stovall

291 A.D.2d 319, 737 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 291 A.D.2d 319 (Stovall v. Stovall) 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

Stovall v. Stovall, 291 A.D.2d 319, 737 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered March 16, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion to modify the parties’ judgment of divorce so as to terminate or reduce plaintiff’s 50% share in defendant’s pension, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claims which defendant raises in this postjudgment motion were raised, or could have been raised, in the prior post-judgment motion he made challenging the distribution of his pension (270 AD2d 4, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 791), and are therefore barred by the prior order denying that motion (see, De Ganay v De Ganay, 269 AD2d 157; Cook v Cook, 260 AD2d 160, lv denied 93 NY2d 994). In any event, defendant failed to provide a basis for modifying the equitable distribution award. Concur — Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lemer and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered March 16, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion to modify the parties’ judgment of divorce so as to terminate or reduce plaintiff’s 50% share in defendant’s pension, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The claims which defendant raises in this postjudgment motion were raised, or could have been raised, in the prior post-judgment motion he made challenging the distribution of his pension (270 AD2d 4, lv dismissed 95 NY2d 791), and are therefore barred by the prior order denying that motion (see, De Ganay v De Ganay, 269 AD2d 157; Cook v Cook, 260 AD2d 160, lv denied 93 NY2d 994). In any event, defendant failed to provide a basis for modifying the equitable distribution award. Concur — Williams, J.P., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lemer and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 319, 737 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stovall-v-stovall-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack