Jonas v. Jonas

Decision Date02 February 2004
Docket Number2003-01901.
Citation770 N.Y.S.2d 889,4 A.D.3d 336,2004 NY Slip Op 00500
PartiesEWA JONAS, Appellant, v. JAMES JONAS, Respondent.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court properly denied those branches of the plaintiff's motion which were, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (2) to modify the judgment of divorce on the ground of newly-discovered evidence. The plaintiff failed to establish that the evidence was not available at the time of the prejudgment proceedings, or that it would likely have produced a different result regarding the equitable disposition of the marital residence (see Gonzalez v Chalpin, 233 AD2d 367 [1996]; Bertan v Richmond Mem. Hosp. & Health Ctr., 131 AD2d 799, 801 [1987]; Agarwal v Quail Homes of Long Is., 120 AD2d 694, 695 [1986]). Since the Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the motion which was to modify the judgment, it therefore also correctly declined to transfer ownership of the marital residence solely to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's remaining contentions are without merit.

Ritter, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Sicurelli v. Sicurelli
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • May 4, 2010
    ...240), or that the evidence would probably have produced a different result regarding his maintenance obligation ( see Jonas v. Jonas, 4 A.D.3d 336, 770 N.Y.S.2d 889). Furthermore, because the defendant failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or m......
  • Westchester Med. Ctr. v. Lincoln Gen. Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • March 22, 2011
    ...and the amount of benefits paid for alleged prior claims, “was not available at the time of the prejudgment proceedings” ( Jonas v. Jonas, 4 A.D.3d 336, 336, 770 N.Y.S.2d 889; see Sicurelli v. Sicurelli, 73 A.D.3d 735, 901 N.Y.S.2d 305). Moreover, although courts possess inherent discretion......
  • Welz v. Welz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • April 5, 2011
    ...his motion probably would have produced a different result ( see Sicurelli v. Sicurelli, 73 A.D.3d 735, 901 N.Y.S.2d 305;Jonas v. Jonas, 4 A.D.3d 336, 770 N.Y.S.2d 889). Likewise, because the plaintiff failed to satisfy his burden of establishing the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, o......
  • Johnson v. Lazarowitz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 2, 2004

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT