From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mulholland v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 2007
37 A.D.3d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)

Opinion

No. 109.

February 1, 2007.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered on or about September 29, 2005, which denied defendant's motion to vacate a judgment of divorce, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

George H. Parker, New York, for appellant.

Bender Burrows Rosenthal LLP, New York (Susan L. Bender of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Catterson and Kavanagh, JJ.


Defendant, who explicitly consented to the divorce on the basis of plaintiff's testimony at the 2002 inquest to which the parties stipulated, should be equitably estopped from taking an inconsistent position at this late juncture ( see Dominguez v Dominguez, 255 AD2d 121). In addition, although it appears that defendant, at the time of the inquest, was aware of the purported new evidence he now claims demonstrates the falsity of plaintiffs testimony at the inquest, he offers no explanation for not having presented such evidence at the inquest ( see Calloway v Calloway, 17 AD3d 286).


Summaries of

Mulholland v. Grant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Feb 1, 2007
37 A.D.3d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
Case details for

Mulholland v. Grant

Case Details

Full title:CAROL MULHOLLAND GRANT, Respondent, v. PAUL GRANT, Appellant

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

Date published: Feb 1, 2007

Citations

37 A.D.3d 167 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007)
2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 734
830 N.Y.S.2d 527

Citing Cases

Williams v. Williams

Both of these claims are wholly devoid of merit and at least border on the frivolous. While I recognize that…

Cuneo v. New York Presbyt. Hosp.

Nevertheless, the movant must demonstrate that he could not have discovered the evidence earlier "by the…