From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Karasik v. Karasik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 16, 1991
172 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)

Opinion

April 16, 1991

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jacqueline W. Silbermann, J.).


Action No. 1 is a matrimonial action. Action No. 2 is a plenary action in which appellant seeks to enforce an agreement allegedly entered into by the parties relinquishing their rights to certain equitable distribution.

The Supreme Court acted within its discretion in consolidating the actions based on the existence of common questions of law and fact, and to prevent unnecessary duplication and possible injustice resulting from divergent decisions. (See, Chinatown Apts. v. New York City Tr. Auth., 100 A.D.2d 824, 825.) Further, the matrimonial action is the proper forum for resolving the issues involving equitable distribution (see, Boronow v Boronow, 71 N.Y.2d 284). Finally, the prior holding of the court declaring the letter agreement unenforceable in the matrimonial action, and from which no appeal was taken, is the law of the case, and thus the court properly dismissed the plenary action.

Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.


Summaries of

Karasik v. Karasik

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 16, 1991
172 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
Case details for

Karasik v. Karasik

Case Details

Full title:MURIEL KARASIK, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD KARASIK, Defendant. (Action No. 1.…

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

Date published: Apr 16, 1991

Citations

172 A.D.2d 294 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)
568 N.Y.S.2d 384

Citing Cases

State of New York v. Grecco

In that event, the State in the first action would not know whether fraud and a breach of fiduciary duty was…

Slated IP, LLC v. Indep. Film Dev. Grp., LLC

On January 23, 2013, this Court heard oral arguments on Slated's preliminary injunction motion (NYSCEF Doc.…