Aguirre v. Aguirre

6 Citing cases

  1. Schottel v. Kutyba

    No. 06-1577-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 2, 2009)   Cited 56 times
    Finding that plaintiff's tort claims "begin and end in a domestic dispute" and state courts are better suited to that adjudication

    Unlike Ankenbrandt, where the tort claims were distinct from the domestic relationship, Schottel's tort claims begin and end in a domestic dispute, as evidenced by the request in Schottel's original complaint to have the divorce judgment declared void ab initio. States are better suited to that adjudication. See, e.g., Aguirre v. Aguirre, 245 A.D.2d 5, 7-8, 665 N.Y.S.2d 638, 640 (1st Dep't 1997) (vacating judgment of divorce where the plaintiff had obtained, through fraudulent misrepresentations, his illiterate wife's signature on a legal document). Even if Schottel had only requested monetary damages (as was the case in her proposed amended complaint), federal jurisdiction would still be lacking. Although we recognize that the domestic relations "exception is very narrow," Williams v. Lambert, 46 F.3d 1275, 1283 (2d Cir. 1995), a plaintiff cannot obtain federal jurisdiction merely by rewriting a domestic dispute as a tort claim for monetary damages.

  2. Renaissance Econ. Dev. Corp. v. Jin Hua Lin

    126 A.D.3d 465 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 9 times

    The court also correctly declined to vacate under CPLR 5015(a)(3), which allows for vacatur where the judgment was obtained by fraud or misconduct. The fraud referenced in the statute must be โ€œextrinsic fraud,โ€ that is, a fraud on the defaulting party that induces them not to defend the case (Shaw v. Shaw, 97 A.D.2d 403, 403, 467 N.Y.S.2d 231 [2d Dept.1983] ; see Aguirre v. Aguirre, 245 A.D.2d 5, 7, 665 N.Y.S.2d 638 [1st Dept.1997] ). Respondent's supposed confusion over the relief sought in the petition is not a basis for such vacatur and she points to no other extrinsic fraud.

  3. Augustin v. Augustin

    79 A.D.3d 651 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 18 times

    In her motion, the wife alleged that the 1985 judgment "present[ed] a case of 'extrinsic fraud,' i.e., 'a fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter'" ( Aguirre v Aguirre, 245 AD2d 5, 7, quoting Shaw v Shaw, 97 AD2d 403, 403; see generally United States v Throckmorton, 98 US 61). Because it is right on point, I quote at length from the Second Department's discussion of extrinsic fraud, also referred to as fraud on the court, in another matrimonial action: "A judgment obtained without proper service of process is invalid, even when the defendant has actual notice of the lawsuit, because as a prophylactic measure such a rule is necessary to prevent 'sewer service' ( see Feinstein v Bergner, 48 NY2d 234, 239-241).

  4. McNelis v. McNelis

    6 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)   Cited 8 times

    The defendant waived his claim that service was not properly effected by appearing in the action and actively participating in the proceedings before moving for leave to serve a late answer ( see CPLR 3211[e]; Weslock v. Weslock, 280 A.D.2d 278; Frankel v. Siravo, 278 A.D.2d 66; Dahlberg v. Dahlberg, 105 A.D.2d 968). Under these circumstances, there is no merit to his contention that the Supreme Court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, and thus had no authority to award the plaintiff a judgment of divorce upon his default in answering ( see Domestic Relations Law ยง 232; Scheinkman, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 14, Domestic Relations Law C232:3 at 63; see also Adams v. Adams, 255 A.D.2d 535; Aguirre v. Aguirre, 245 A.D.2d 5).

  5. Lomaglio v. Lomaglio

    35 Misc. 3d 1224 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Other courts, in granting health insurance as part of the spousal support, have held that it is coterminous with maintenance. Simon v. Simon, 55 AD3d 477 (1st Dep't 2008)(awarding health insurance costs in a non-durational maintenance award); Aguirre v. Aguirre, 245 A.D.2d 5 (1st Dep't 1997); Feldman v. Feldman, 194 A.D.2d 207 (2d Dep't 1993)(court had authority to direct husband to continue to provide the wife with health and hospital insurance coverage coterminous with his obligation to provide maintenance); Donna E.F. v. Anthony S.F., 2007 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 6383; 238 N.Y.L.J. 45 (Sup.Ct. Westchester Cty.2007)(court orders health insurance coterminous with the husband's maintenance obligation). In short, there is no authority found by this Court which requries this husband to pay health insurance costs after the epriod of maintenance terminates.

  6. MATTER OF DE SANCHEZ

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 50342 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)

    It is clear that the fraud referred to in CPLR 5015 (a) (3) can be "intrinsic" or "extrinsic" to the issues in controversy ( Oppenheimer v Westcott, 47 NY2d 595, 603; Avenoso v Avenoso, 266 AD2d 326, 327 [2nd Dept 1999]). In the context of a motion to set aside a judgment, "extrinsic fraud" has been defined as a "fraud practiced in obtaining a judgment such that a party may have been prevented from fully and fairly litigating the matter'" (Bank of NY v Lagakos , 27 AD3d 678, 679 [2nd Dept 2006], quoting Shaw v Shaw, 97 AD2d 403 [2nd Dept 1983]; see also Aguirre v Aguirre, 245 AD2d 5, 7 [1st Dept 1997]).