Mims v. Perez

3 Citing cases

  1. Greene v. Rachlin

    154 A.D.3d 818 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 7 times

    The plaintiffs also were not entitled to vacatur because they failed to establish that certain alleged newly discovered evidence would probably have produced a different result (see CPLR 5015[a][2] ; IMC Mtge. Co. v. Vetere, 142 A.D.3d 954, 954, 37 N.Y.S.3d 329 ; Meltzer v. Meltzer, 140 A.D.3d 716, 716, 30 N.Y.S.3d 920 ). Nor did they demonstrate their entitlement to vacatur on the ground of fraud, misrepresentation, or other alleged misconduct by the Rachlin defendants (see CPLR 5015[a][3] ; Meltzer v. Meltzer, 140 A.D.3d at 717, 30 N.Y.S.3d 920; Mims v. Perez, 79 A.D.3d 1106, 1106, 912 N.Y.S.2d 913 ).

  2. Diaz v. Wyckoff Heights Med. Ctr.

    148 A.D.3d 778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017)   Cited 9 times

    Further, the defendants failed to establish the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the part of the plaintiff and, therefore, they were not entitled to vacatur of the judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) (see Meltzer v. Meltzer, 140 A.D.3d 716, 717, 30 N.Y.S.3d 920 ; Mims v. Perez, 79 A.D.3d 1106, 912 N.Y.S.2d 913 ). Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have denied that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate the judgment entered February 24, 2012.

  3. Beckwith v. Xi Yang

    106 A.D.3d 765 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. The plaintiff failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct on the part of the defendant and, thus, was not entitled to vacatur of any portion of the judgment of divorce pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(3) ( see Mims v. Perez, 79 A.D.3d 1106, 912 N.Y.S.2d 913;Scheu v. Fan Ru Tseng, 72 A.D.3d 930, 898 N.Y.S.2d 502;*880cf. Shaw v. Shaw, 97 A.D.2d 403, 467 N.Y.S.2d 231).