Bradley v. Earl
| Decision Date | 15 July 1985 |
| Citation | 491 N.Y.S.2d 709,112 A.D.2d 262 |
| Parties | Eileen Earl BRADLEY, Appellant, v. James W. EARL, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Charles A. Bradley, White Plains (John J. Sherlock, White Plains, of counsel), for appellant.
James W. Earl, respondent pro se.
Before LAZER, J.P., and THOMPSON, RUBIN and KUNZEMAN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife moved for leave to enter a money judgment against the defendant husband for arrears in child support due under a separation agreement which was incorporated but not merged in a judgment of divorce between the parties and which contained a cost of living escalation clause, and for an award of counsel fees, the plaintiff appeals (1) as limited by her brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 15, 1984, as failed to grant the entire increased cost of living reflected in the Consumer Price Index for the northeastern region of the United States as increased child support pursuant to the separation agreement, and instead limited recovery to only 40% of the increased cost of living as reflected in the Consumer Price Index, and awarded only $1,500 as a counsel fee and (2) from an order of the same court, entered April 9, 1984, which denied her motion for reargument.
On appeal from the order and judgment entered February 15, 1984, plaintiff seeks review pursuant to CPLR 5501(a)(1) of (1) an order of the same court (Ferraro, J.), entered January 6, 1983, which determined that language of paragraph "Tenth" of the separation agreement, relating to cost of living increases of child support, was vague and ambiguous and thereupon referred the motion for child support arrears and counsel fees for a hearing and (2) an order of the same court entered March 1, 1983, which denied her motion for reargument of the order entered January 6, 1983.
Order and judgment entered February 15, 1984, modified, on the law, by deleting the word "40%" from the fourth decretal paragraph thereof and substituting therefor the word "100%", and by deleting all the words after the words "('the index')" therefrom and substituting therefor the words "and it is further", and by deleting the fifth and sixth decretal paragraphs therefrom. As so modified order and judgment affirmed insofar as appealed from, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for computation of the amount due under the agreement in accordance herewith.
Appeal from order entered April 9, 1984 dismissed. No appeal lies from an order denying reargument.
So much of the appeal from the order and judgment entered February 15, 1984, as seeks review of (1) that portion of the order entered January 6, 1983 which...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
OneWest Bank FSB v. Perla
...within the meaning of CPLR 5501(a)(1) (see Posner v. Post Rd. Dev. Equity, 253 A.D.2d 866, 867, 678 N.Y.S.2d 350 ; Bradley v. Earl, 112 A.D.2d 262, 263, 491 N.Y.S.2d 709 ). Accordingly, an order directing a traverse hearing is not reviewable even on an appeal from a judgment (see Posner v. ......
-
Kissm Realty Corp. v. Brooklyn Cmty. Mgmt., LLC
...motion of that defendant for leave to reargue (see Bank of N.Y. v. Segui, 120 A.D.3d 1369, 1370, 993 N.Y.S.2d 330 ; Bradley v. Earl, 112 A.D.2d 262, 263, 491 N.Y.S.2d 709 ). “ ‘Upon review of a determination made after a nonjury trial, this Court's authority is as broad as that of the trial......
-
Barzin v. Barzin
...offers no proof in support of this position and, inasmuch as he voluntarily agreed to the escalation clause (see, Bradley v. Earl, 112 A.D.2d 262, 263-264, 491 N.Y.S.2d 709), he may not avoid that obligation "merely because it subsequently appears to have been a bad bargain" (2A Weinstein-K......