Bordas v. Bordas
| Decision Date | 02 December 2015 |
| Citation | 19 N.Y.S.3d 763 (Mem),2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 08797,134 A.D.3d 660 |
| Parties | Aleida Veronica BORDAS, respondent, v. David M. BORDAS, appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Frank A. Catalina, Peekskill, N.Y. (Andrea N. Catalina of counsel), for appellant.
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Paul I. Marx, J.), dated April 17, 2014. The order, in effect, dismissed the defendant's motion with respect to certain life insurance and annuity accounts on the ground that the action had abated.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The Supreme Court correctly determined that the plaintiff's death, which occurred shortly after the parties executed a pretrial stipulation with respect to the grounds for divorce, abated the instant action for a divorce and ancillary relief (see generally Cornell v. Cornell, 7 N.Y.2d 164, 169, 196 N.Y.S.2d 98, 164 N.E.2d 395; King v. Kline, 65 A.D.3d 431, 884 N.Y.S.2d 229; Flaherty v. Lynch, 292 A.D.2d 340, 738 N.Y.S.2d 78; Matter of Forgione, 237 A.D.2d 438, 655 N.Y.S.2d 552; Sperber v. Schwartz, 139 A.D.2d 640, 527 N.Y.S.2d 279; Davis v. Davis, 75 A.D.2d 861, 427 N.Y.S.2d 891, affd.52 N.Y.2d 850, 437 N.Y.S.2d 77, 418 N.E.2d 670), divesting the court of jurisdiction and necessitating dismissal of the defendant's motion (see Davis v. Davis, 75 A.D.2d at 861–862, 427 N.Y.S.2d 891; King v. Kline,65 A.D.3d 431, 884 N.Y.S.2d 229; Flaherty v. Lynch, 292 A.D.2d 340, 738 N.Y.S.2d 78).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the stipulation was not the equivalent of a final adjudication of the substantive rights of the parties and, therefore, did not entitle the parties to have a final judgment of divorce entered nunc pro tunc to the date of the stipulation (see Matter of Alfieri, 203 A.D.2d 562, 611 N.Y.S.2d 226).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit (see id.).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Adams v. Margulis
...1995] ). In this instance, the husband's death "abated the ... action for a divorce and ancillary relief" ( Bordas v. Bordas , 134 A.D.3d 660, 660, 19 N.Y.S.3d 763 [2d Dept. 2015] ; see Forgione v. Forgione , 231 A.D.2d 603, 604, 647 N.Y.S.2d 811 [2d Dept. 1996] ). Despite the foregoing, af......
- Bosi v. Louzoun
-
Bomer v. Dean
...occurs, the court lacks jurisdiction to act (see First Metlife Invs. Ins. Co. , 170 A.D.3d at 674, 93 N.Y.S.3d 594 ; Bordas v. Bordas , 134 A.D.3d 660, 660, 19 N.Y.S.3d 763 [2d Dept. 2015] ; King v. Kline , 65 A.D.3d 431, 433, 884 N.Y.S.2d 229 [1st Dept. 2009] ). The abatement rule also typ......
-
First Metlife Investors Ins. Co. v. Filippino
...orders" set forth in Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(2)(b) and restore the original beneficiary designation (see Bordas v. Bordas, 134 A.D.3d 660, 19 N.Y.S.3d 763 ; King v. Kline, 65 A.D.3d 431, 884 N.Y.S.2d 229 ; Flaherty v. Lynch, 292 A.D.2d 340, 738 N.Y.S.2d 78 ).However, we agree with t......