Long v. Long
| Decision Date | 29 June 1998 |
| Citation | 251 A.D.2d 631,675 N.Y.S.2d 557 |
| Parties | Raymond LONG, Respondent, v. Janneke LONG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Behrins & Behrins, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (Susan R. Schneider of counsel), for appellant.
Jacobi, Sieghardt, Bousanti, Barone & Piazza, P.C., Staten Island, N.Y. (George A. Sieghardt of counsel), for respondent.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated July 10, 1991, the defendant former wife appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Radin, J.H.O.), dated October 30, 1996, which granted the plaintiff former husband's motion for leave to reargue her motion to vacate an income execution for child support arrears to the extent that the court failed to calculate the proper amount of child support arrears, and, upon reargument, determined the amount of such arrears to be $16,235.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
A motion for reargument is addressed to the sound discretion of the court which decided the prior motion and may be granted upon a showing that the court overlooked or misapprehended the facts or law or for some other reason mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision (See, Rodney v. New York Pyrotechnic Prods. Co., 112 A.D.2d 410, 411, 492 N.Y.S.2d 69; Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D.2d 558, 418 N.Y.S.2d 588). The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting reargument since it failed to make a determination of child support arrears as directed in the order of reference dated September 26, 1995 (see, Joosten v. Gale, 129 A.D.2d 531, 533, 514 N.Y.S.2d 729).
The defendant's remaining contention involves matters dehors the record and will not be considered (see, Leis v. Finkelstein, 205 A.D.2d 738, 613 N.Y.S.2d 699; Mulligan v. Lackey, 33 A.D.2d 991, 307 N.Y.S.2d 371).
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beverage Mktg. USA v. South Beach Beverage Co., 2004 NY Slip Op 50235(U) (NY 4/5/2004)
...or for some other reason improperly decided the prior motion. Hoey-Kennedy v. Kennedy, 294 A.D. 2d 573 (2nd Dept. 2002); Long v. Long, 251 A.D. 2d 631 (2nd Dept.1998); and Foley v. Roche, 68 A.D. 2d 558 (1st Dept., 1979). A motion to reargue is not a means by which the unsuccessful party ca......
-
Siegel v. Snyder
...the Court glean from the record herein where it had, for some other reason, mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision. See Long v. Long, 251 A.D.2d 631, 675 N.Y.S.2d 557 (2d Dept. 1998). Re-argument is therefore DENIED as defendants RALI and SNCH have failed to demonstrate that the Court m......
-
Siegel v. Snyder
...the Court glean from the record herein where it had, for some other reason, mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision. See Long v. Long, 251 A.D.2d 631, 675 N.Y.S.2d 557 (2d Dept. 1998). Re-argument is therefore DENIED as defendants RALI and SNCH have failed to demonstrate that the Court m......
-
Reid v. Inc., Index No.: 1981/11
...the Court glean from the record herein where it had, for some other reason, mistakenly arrived at its earlier decision. See Long v. Long, 251 A.D.2d 631, 675 N.Y.S.2d 557 (2d Dept. 1998). Re-argument is denied as defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Court misapprehended the facts or......