Opinion
Submitted February 14, 2000
March 23, 2000
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Shapiro, J.), dated April 12, 1999, which denied his motion to stay the trial of the action, (2) an order of the same court, also dated April 12, 1999, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff's motion to strike his answer and to preclude him from participating in the inquest by presenting evidence or cross-examining the plaintiff's witnesses, and (3) a judgment of the same court, entered May 26, 1999, which granted the plaintiff a divorce based upon cruel and inhuman treatment and awarded her the sum of $2,426,082.50 in equitable distribution.
Pirro, Collier, Cohen Halpern, LLP, White Plains, N.Y. (Jill L. Axelrod of counsel), for appellant.
Berman Bavero Frucco Gouz Braunstein, P.C., White Plains, N Y (Ronnie Gouz Berman of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the appeals from the orders are dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that on the appeal from the judgment the orders are affirmed and the appeal from the judgment is otherwise dismissed; and it is further,
ORDERED that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.
The appeals from the intermediate orders dated April 12, 1999, must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248 ). The issues raised on the appeals from the orders are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, James v. Powell, 19 N.Y.2d 249 ;CPLR 5501[a][1]).
Although the judgment entered May 26, 1999, was entered upon the plaintiff's default, appellate review of the orders dated April 12, 1999, is not precluded since the defendant may obtain review of matters which were the subject of contest in the Supreme Court (see, James v. Powell, supra).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's application to stay the trial so that the defendant's third counsel, hired on the eve of trial, could familiarize himself with the case (see, e.g., Matter of Housing Dev. Fund Co. of Carpenters Joiners v. County of Rockland, 134 A.D.2d 594; Wilson v. Wilson, 97 A.D.2d 897, 898 ; Matter of Case, 24 A.D.2d 797; CPLR 2201; see also, People v. Africk, 107 A.D.2d 700, 702 ; cf., Englert v. Hart, 112 A.D.2d 3 ). Furthermore, the Supreme Court did not err in striking the defendant's answer or in precluding his counsel from participating at the inquest. For more than a year, the defendant had willfully disobeyed a multitude of court orders. He repeatedly frustrated disclosure, purloined marital assets, falsified financial documents, refused to appear for an examination before trial, and defied requests for medical records to substantiate his claims of ill health. Although the defendant was able to travel to Italy, Portugal, and Canada, he claimed to be too ill to make any court appearances, including an appearance on the date which was scheduled for trial. Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly imposed the maximum penalty on the defendant pursuant to CPLR 3126 (see, e.g., Zletz v. Wetanson, 67 N.Y.2d 711, 713 ; Brady v. County of Nassau, 234 A.D.2d 408 ; Eagle Star Ins. Co. of Am. v. Behar, 207 A.D.2d 326 ; see also, Maillard v. Maillard, 243 A.D.2d 448 ; Beard v. Peconic Foam Insulation Corp., 149 A.D.2d 555 ). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly refused to allow the defendant's counsel to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses because the defendant did not appear at the inquest, his new counsel was not ready to proceed, a preclusion order had been issued, and counsel did not object to the rulings of the Supreme Court. It would have been palpably unjust under the circumstances to permit cross-examination of the plaintiff's expert on his efforts to ascertain the value of the marital estate (see, e.g.,ICD Group v. Israel Foreign Trade Co., 221 A.D.2d 152 ; cf., Maharam v. Maharam, 245 A.D.2d 94; Goldberg v. Goldberg, 172 A.D.2d 316, 317 ;Contino v. Contino, 140 A.D.2d 662 ; Domestic Relations Law §§ 236[B][1][c], [5][d][11]; cf., Otto v. Otto, 150 A.D.2d 57 ; Grande v. Grande, 129 A.D.2d 612 ).
Finally, the defendant's appeal from the judgment entered upon his default in appearing for trial must be dismissed (see, CPLR 5511). A party against whom a judgment is entered on default must first move to vacate his default (see,CPLR 5015[a]; see also, Gennett v. Gennett, 245 A.D.2d 598 ; Soule v. Lozada, 240 A.D.2d 897 ; Smith v. City of New York, 238 A.D.2d 574 ). Here, the defendant did not move to vacate his default.
BRACKEN, J.P., O'BRIEN, SULLIVAN, and LUCIANO, JJ., concur.