From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re Burgos v. Burgos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2003
304 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

935

April 24, 2003.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline Silbermann, J.), entered on or about April 12, 2002, which granted plaintiff's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report recommending that the parties' judgment of divorce be vacated on the ground of fraud, and denied defendant's cross motion to, inter alia, reject the report, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

James W. Badie, for plaintiff-respondent.

Larry S. Bachner, for defendant-appellant.

Before: Tom, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Williams, Marlow, JJ.


The record amply supports the Special Referee's findings (see Nager v. Panadis, 238 A.D.2d 135, 135-136) that for the purpose of obtaining an uncontested divorce, defendant went to a lawyer with a woman who impersonated plaintiff and who forged plaintiff's signatures on the documents underlying the divorce judgment (CPLR 5015[a] [3]). We have considered and rejected defendant's other arguments.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.


Summaries of

In re Burgos v. Burgos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 24, 2003
304 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

In re Burgos v. Burgos

Case Details

Full title:IN RE CARMEN BURGOS, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. ANGEL BURGOS…

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

Date published: Apr 24, 2003

Citations

304 A.D.2d 475 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
757 N.Y.S.2d 733

Citing Cases

Cohen v. Marshall

Plaintiffs do not claim a fraud that deprived plaintiffs of a full trial. See Burgos v. Burgos, 304 A.D.2d…

Cohen v. Marshall

Vacatur under section 5015 (a) (3) requires conduct intended to defraud. (Burgos v Burgos, 304 AD2d 475…