Behan v. Behan
| Decision Date | 07 December 2016 |
| Citation | 42 N.Y.S.3d 339,2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08192,145 A.D.3d 653 |
| Parties | Steven F. BEHAN, appellant, v. Helena Veronica BEHAN, et al., respondents. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
145 A.D.3d 653
42 N.Y.S.3d 339
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 08192
Steven F. BEHAN, appellant,
v.
Helena Veronica BEHAN, et al., respondents.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Dec. 7, 2016.
Julianne E. Lewis, Islip, N.Y., for appellant.
Helena V. Behan, sued herein as Helena Veronica Behan, Smithtown, N.Y., respondent pro se.
Gayle A. Mandaro, Westbury, N.Y., for respondent Anne Hoffman.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeals by the plaintiff from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (W. Gerard Asher, J.), dated October 15, 2013, and (2) an order of that court dated July 23, 2014. The order dated October 15, 2013, granted the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the calendar only to the extent of directing a settlement conference, and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Anne Hoffman.
The order dated July 23, 2014, in effect, denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to renew and reargue his motion to restore the action to the calendar, and, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Helena Veronica Behan.
ORDERED that on the Court's own motion, the notice of appeal from so much of the order dated October 15, 2013, as, sua sponte, directed the dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Anne Hoffman, and from so much of the order dated July 23, 2014, as, sua sponte, directed dismissal of the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Helena Veronica Behan are deemed to be applications for leave to appeal from those portions of the orders, and leave to appeal from those portions of the orders is granted (see CPLR 5701[c] ); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated October 15, 2013, is reversed, on the law, and the plaintiff's motion to restore the action to the calendar is granted; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated July 23, 2014, as, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to reargue his motion to restore the
action to the calendar is dismissed, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated July 23, 2014, as, in effect, denied that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for leave to renew his motion to restore the action to the calendar is dismissed as academic in light of our determination on the appeal from the order dated October 15, 2013; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated July 23, 2014, is reversed insofar as reviewed, on the law; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
In August 2006, the plaintiff, Steven F. Behan (hereinafter the husband), commenced an action for a divorce and ancillary relief against the defendant Helena Veronica Behan (hereinafter the wife). Pursuant to a May 2007 stipulation of settlement, the wife agreed to pay the husband the sum of $200,000 in exchange for his interest in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Arvanitakis v. Lester
-
Jung Hee Lee v. Viera
...that it 145 A.D.3d 676was barred by the doctrine of res judicata (see Kalinka v. St. Francis Hosp., 34 A.D.3d at 744, 827 N.Y.S.2d 75 ; 42 N.Y.S.3d 339Santangelo v. YMCA of Greater N.Y., 100 A.D.2d at 581–582, 473 N.Y.S.2d 520...
-
Spaulding v. AVR Realty Co.
...820, 821, 796 N.Y.S.2d 637 ; see also, Liew v. Jeffrey Samel & Partners, 149 A.D.3d 1059, 1060, 53 N.Y.S.3d 134 ; Behan v. Behan, 145 A.D.3d 653, 655, 42 N.Y.S.3d 339 ). The Second Department has declared that administratively purging these pre-note of issue cases, without the service of a ......