Sullivan v. Sullivan

174 A.D.2d 862, 571 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8360
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 13, 1991
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 174 A.D.2d 862 (Sullivan v. 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
Sullivan v. Sullivan, 174 A.D.2d 862, 571 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8360 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Opinion

—Harvey, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Fischer, J.) declaring plaintiff’s entitlement to a divorce, entered August 28, 1990 in Broome County, upon a decision of the court.

Following a jury trial in this divorce action, Supreme Court made findings of fact and issued a judgment stating that plaintiff was entitled to the divorce, but that a final judgment of divorce would not be issued until the resolution of ancillary issues. Although defendant timely filed a notice of appeal, we conclude that this appeal must be dismissed. Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (5) (a) specifically states that, in divorce actions such as the instant one, equitable distribution must be made in the final judgment of divorce. In the absence of a final judgment awarding equitable distribution, a finding of divorce is not effective. Accordingly, the "judgment” appealed from is nothing more than a decision stating the intention on the part of the court to divorce the parties in the future and, as such, is both nonbinding and nonfinal, as well as without legal effect. Because defendant cannot be aggrieved by such a [863]*863"judgment” (see, CPLR 5511), dismissal of the appeal is proper. Although we recognize that we have considered appeals such as these in the past (see, e.g., McKilligan v McKilligan, 156 AD2d 904), we now fully see the futility of such a course and will not consider such an appeal if it is presented to us in the future.

Mahoney, P. J., Levine, Mercure and Crew III, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.

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

Related

Chang v. Yu-Jen Chang
92 A.D.3d 1153 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Nagerl v. Nagerl
46 A.D.3d 1199 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Lammers v. Rumsfeld
345 F. Supp. 2d 604 (E.D. Virginia, 2004)
Graham v. Graham
293 A.D.2d 345 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Lazarus v. Lazarus
240 A.D.2d 544 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)
In re Johnson
172 Misc. 2d 684 (New York Supreme Court, 1997)
Albert v. Schoenleest
229 A.D.2d 813 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Hunter v. Hunter
206 A.D.2d 700 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Blaise v. Blaise
206 A.D.2d 715 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Busa v. Busa
196 A.D.2d 267 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Zack v. Zack
183 A.D.2d 382 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Estate of Agliata v. Agliata
155 Misc. 2d 385 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Garcia v. Garcia
178 A.D.2d 683 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 A.D.2d 862, 571 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8360, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sullivan-v-sullivan-nyappdiv-1991.