From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Pauk v. Pauk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

November 13, 2000.

Motion by the appellant, inter alia, for leave to reargue a decision and order of this court dated June 5, 2000, in the above-entitled action, which determined an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated May 28, 1999, and to permit oral argument, and cross motion for an award of an attorney's fee on the motion.

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, SONDRA MILLER, HOWARD MILLER, JJ.


DECISION ORDER ON MOTION

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion and cross motion and the papers filed in opposition thereto, it is

ORDERED that the motion is granted to the extent that reargument of the decision and order dated June 5, 2000, is granted, and, upon reargument, that decision and order is vacated and the following is substituted therefor:

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment dated April 11, 1994, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Satterfield, J.), dated May 28, 1999, which denied his motion to vacate so much of the judgment of divorce as directed him to pay an attorney's fee to the plaintiff.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The defendant has not demonstrated that relief pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) is appropriate or that this Court should exercise its discretion in the interest of justice and relieve him of his obligation to pay attorney's fees pursuant to the judgment of divorce (see, Ladd v. Stevenson, 112 N.Y. 325, 332; Oneida Natl. Bank Trust Co. v. Unczur, 37 A.D.2d 480, 483) and it is further,

ORDERED that the motion is otherwise denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the cross motion is denied.


Summaries of

Pauk v. Pauk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 13, 2000
277 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Pauk v. Pauk

Case Details

Full title:INES PAUK, RESPONDENT, v. EDGAR PAUK, APPELLANT

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

Date published: Nov 13, 2000

Citations

277 A.D.2d 296 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
716 N.Y.S.2d 876

Citing Cases

Domino v. Domino

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Under the circumstances of this…

Blatt v. Ashkenazi

Its power to do so does not depend upon any statute, but is inherent, and it would be quite unfortunate if it…