Vandelli v. Vandelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vandelli v. Vandelli

266 A.D.2d 280, 698 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13068

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 280 (Vandelli v. Vandelli) 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

Vandelli v. Vandelli, 266 A.D.2d 280, 698 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated August 21, 1990, the defendant former wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), dated July 31, 1998, as denied her motion to vacate the judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of divorce on the ground of newly-discovered evidence (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; S.A.B. Enters. v Stewart’s Ice Cream Co., 242 AD2d 845). The so-called newly-discovered evidence was in existence before the judgment of divorce was issued and the defendant failed to establish that she could not have discovered it sooner with due diligence (see, Corpuel v Galasso, 240 AD2d 531; McGovern v Getz, 193 AD2d 655; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645). Joy, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, 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 21, 1990, the defendant former wife appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), dated July 31, 1998, as denied her motion to vacate the judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment of divorce on the ground of newly-discovered evidence (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [2]; S.A.B. Enters. v Stewart’s Ice Cream Co., 242 AD2d 845). The so-called newly-discovered evidence was in existence before the judgment of divorce was issued and the defendant failed to establish that she could not have discovered it sooner with due diligence (see, Corpuel v Galasso, 240 AD2d 531; McGovern v Getz, 193 AD2d 655; Vierya v Briggs & Stratton Corp., 166 AD2d 645). Joy, J. P., Goldstein, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 280, 698 N.Y.S.2d 506, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vandelli-v-vandelli-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack