From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tornheim v. Tornheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 2003
309 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2002-09069

Submitted September 25, 2003.

October 27, 2003.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated December 4, 2001, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Yancey, J.), dated September 3, 2002, as granted the defendant's motion for a money judgment pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 244 and denied that branch of his cross motion which was to vacate so much of the judgment of divorce as imputed income to him for the purpose of calculating his child support obligation.

Ernest H. Hammer, New York, N.Y. for appellant.

Regosin, Edwards, Stone Feder, New York, N.Y. (Saul E. Feder of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, THOMAS A. ADAMS, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The plaintiff failed to present any evidence of fraud on the part of the defendant ( see CPLR 5015[a][3]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of his cross motion which was to vacate so much of the parties' judgment of divorce as imputed income to him and granted the defendant's motion for a money judgment for, inter alia, arrears which accrued under the judgment of divorce ( see Walker v. Weinstock, 255 A.D.2d 508; North Fork Bank v. Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., 234 A.D.2d 435).

ALTMAN, J.P., H. MILLER, ADAMS and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Tornheim v. Tornheim

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 27, 2003
309 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

Tornheim v. Tornheim

Case Details

Full title:URI TORNHEIM, appellant, v. DOREEN TORNHEIM, respondent

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Oct 27, 2003

Citations

309 A.D.2d 923 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
766 N.Y.S.2d 376

Citing Cases

Gaw v. Gaw

The Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. Contrary to the defendant's contention, since he failed to…

Farhadi v. Qureshi

Here, the defendant failed to offer a reasonable excuse for his default in appearing ( see Hwang v. Tam, 72…