Tunga v. Tunga

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tunga v. Tunga

307 A.D.2d 289, 762 N.Y.S.2d 499

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

DecidedJuly 14, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 289 (Tunga v. Tunga) 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

Tunga v. Tunga, 307 A.D.2d 289, 762 N.Y.S.2d 499 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Austin, J.), entered January 14, 2002, which, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant contends that the judgment should be vacated because the plaintiff failed to timely submit the judgment for settlement on notice, in accordance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48 (a). However, the defendant’s procedural objections to the judgment are raised for the first time on appeal, and the failure to raise them before the Supreme Court in a motion to vacate or resettle prevented proper development of the record. Accordingly, we decline to review the defendant’s claim (see West Val. Fire Dist. No. 1 v Village of Springville, 294 AD2d 949 [2002]; Meldrim v Hill, 260 AD2d 836, 839 [1999]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Mastro, 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 a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Austin, J.), entered January 14, 2002, which, inter alia, awarded custody of the parties’ child to the plaintiff.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant contends that the judgment should be vacated because the plaintiff failed to timely submit the judgment for settlement on notice, in accordance with the requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.48 (a). However, the defendant’s procedural objections to the judgment are raised for the first time on appeal, and the failure to raise them before the Supreme Court in a motion to vacate or resettle prevented proper development of the record. Accordingly, we decline to review the defendant’s claim (see West Val. Fire Dist. No. 1 v Village of Springville, 294 AD2d 949 [2002]; Meldrim v Hill, 260 AD2d 836, 839 [1999]). Santucci, J.P., Krausman, Crane and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 289, 762 N.Y.S.2d 499, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tunga-v-tunga-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack