Mathew v. Mathew

• Citation: 28 N.Y.S.3d 695,137 A.D.3d 1086
• Parties: Soni MATHEW, appellant, v. Sheeja MATHEW, respondent.
• Decision Date: 23 March 2016
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

137 A.D.3d 1086
28 N.Y.S.3d 695

Soni MATHEW, appellant,
v.
Sheeja MATHEW, respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

March 23, 2016.

28 N.Y.S.3d 696

Timothy J. Brennan, White Plains, N.Y. (Tiffany E. Gallo of counsel), for appellant.

Andrew W. Szczesniak, White Plains, N.Y., for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.

Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Janet C. Malone, J.), entered September 18, 2014. The amended order granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of a judgment of divorce of the same court (Francesca E. Connolly, J.) dated August 29, 2012, as, upon her failure to answer the complaint or appear in the action, and her failure to appear at an inquest, awarded the plaintiff ancillary relief pertaining to the issue of equitable distribution.

ORDERED that the amended order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant's cross motion which was pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of the judgment of divorce as awarded the plaintiff ancillary relief pertaining to the issue of equitable distribution is denied.

In November 2011, the plaintiff commenced this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, and the defendant failed to answer the complaint or appear in the action. On April 25, 2012, the Supreme Court conducted an inquest, at which the defendant failed to appear. A judgment of divorce was issued on August 29, 2012, and served on the defendant two days later. In June 2014, the plaintiff moved to enforce certain provisions of the judgment of divorce. In July 2014, the defendant cross-moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 5015(a) to vacate so much of the judgment of divorce as awarded the plaintiff ancillary relief pertaining to the issue of equitable distribution. In the amended order appealed from, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the defendant's cross motion. The plaintiff appeals. We reverse.

"Although the...