From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wolfert v. Buttolph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 5, 1994
206 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

July 5, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vaccaro, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiff's motion is denied.

Where, as here, the question of whether a satisfaction of judgment should be vacated involves issues wholly unrelated to the basis of the action upon which the judgment was entered and occurring outside of the original litigation, those issues are properly raised and determined in a plenary action upon appropriate pleadings (see, Matter of Village of Greenwood Lake v. Mountain Lake Estates, 189 A.D.2d 987; Greenfield v. Stern, 126 Misc. 561). Thus the plaintiff's motion to vacate the satisfaction of judgment, brought in the context of the original litigation, should have been denied.

We further note that under the circumstances, a plenary action based upon fraud would be time barred (see, CPLR 213; 203 [g]).

In light of our determination we reach no other issues. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Wolfert v. Buttolph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 5, 1994
206 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Wolfert v. Buttolph

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY D. WOLFERT, Respondent, v. JOHN BUTTOLPH et al., Defendants, and…

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

Date published: Jul 5, 1994

Citations

206 A.D.2d 359 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
614 N.Y.S.2d 53

Citing Cases

Arnav Indus., Inc. v. M.H.B. Holdings, Inc.

A new action for fraud would be required to vacate a satisfaction of judgment only where the grounds for the…