Vernon v. Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Vernon v. Vernon

10 A.D.3d 722, 781 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11032

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 10 A.D.3d 722 (Vernon v. Vernon) 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

Vernon v. Vernon, 10 A.D.3d 722, 781 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11032 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated January 10, 2003, which, inter alia, upon consent, awarded the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as, upon consent, awarded the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

[723]*723Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to provide him with an opportunity to proceed at the trial on his counterclaims for divorce. However, the defendant’s challenge to that portion of the judgment awarding the plaintiff a divorce must be dismissed since the defendant, through an April 5, 2001, preliminary conference order, in effect, withdrew his counterclaims for divorce and consented to the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff (see Tongue v Tongue, 61 NY2d 809 [1984]; Matter of Brouwer v Pacicca, 291 AD2d 448 [2002]; Matter of Larkin-King v King, 159 AD2d 626 [1990]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to further adjourn the trial (see Barrafato v Franzitta, 308 AD2d 468 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, 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, Kings County (Fitzmaurice, J.), dated January 10, 2003, which, inter alia, upon consent, awarded the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment.

Ordered that the appeal from so much of the judgment as, upon consent, awarded the plaintiff a divorce on the ground of constructive abandonment is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed insofar as reviewed; and it is further,

[723]*723Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondent.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in failing to provide him with an opportunity to proceed at the trial on his counterclaims for divorce. However, the defendant’s challenge to that portion of the judgment awarding the plaintiff a divorce must be dismissed since the defendant, through an April 5, 2001, preliminary conference order, in effect, withdrew his counterclaims for divorce and consented to the entry of judgment in favor of the plaintiff (see Tongue v Tongue, 61 NY2d 809 [1984]; Matter of Brouwer v Pacicca, 291 AD2d 448 [2002]; Matter of Larkin-King v King, 159 AD2d 626 [1990]).

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s request to further adjourn the trial (see Barrafato v Franzitta, 308 AD2d 468 [2003]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Adams, Cozier and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 722, 781 N.Y.S.2d 911, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vernon-v-vernon-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack