Mula v. Mula

Decision Date15 June 2017
Docket Number523168.
Citation59 N.Y.S.3d 146,151 A.D.3d 1326
Parties Paul J. MULA, Respondent, v. Jo–Anne MULA, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

151 A.D.3d 1326
59 N.Y.S.3d 146

Paul J. MULA, Respondent,
Jo–Anne MULA, Appellant.


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

June 15, 2017.

59 N.Y.S.3d 146

Larkin, Ingrassia & Tepermayster, LLP, Newburgh (Azra J. Khan of counsel), for appellant.

Blatchly & Simonson, New Paltz (Bruce D. Blatchly of counsel), for respondent.



Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (McGinty, J.), entered January 28, 2016 in Ulster County, which granted plaintiff's motion to renew and denied defendant's cross motion for an order directing plaintiff to pay certain expenses.

Plaintiff (hereinafter the husband) and defendant (hereinafter the wife) were married in November 1968. During the course of their marriage, the parties acquired two condominiums in St. Croix, unit N–3 and unit J–10. In January 2011, the husband commenced the underlying divorce action. Subsequently, a trial ensued and, in December 2014, Supreme Court granted, among other things, a divorce and determined that the parties' two St. Croix condominiums were marital property that should be sold, with "[t]he net proceeds of the sale ... divided evenly between the

59 N.Y.S.3d 147

parties." Thereafter, the husband appealed and the wife cross-appealed. In February 2015, while the appeals were pending, the wife moved, by order to show cause, for an order "clarifying" the term "net proceeds," arguing that proceeds from sales of the condominiums should be used to satisfy a margin loan taken out against her separate investment, which she alleged constituted the funds used to purchase the condominiums, prior to being divided between her and the husband. The husband opposed the motion. In an April 2015 order, Supreme Court determined that it needed more information "to clarify how net proceeds should be calculated ... as it specifically related to the St. Croix condominiums," and determined that a hearing should be held on the matter. That hearing occurred in August 2015.

In September 2015, before Supreme Court could render a further decision, this Court determined that, among other things, unit J–10 was the wife's separate property, but that unit N–3 was marital property, and, more specifically, that "unit N–3 ... was purchased with the use of marital property as collateral" ( 131 A.D.3d 1296, 1301 n. 5, 16 N.Y.S.3d 868 [2015] ). In light of this Court's decision, the husband moved to renew his opposition to the wife's motion to "clarify." Subsequently, the wife...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • Wright v. State
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 11 March 2021
    ...Trust, 172 A.D.3d 1570, 1574–1575, 101 N.Y.S.3d 477 [2019] [internal quotation marks, brackets and citations omitted]; see Mula v. Mula, 151 A.D.3d 1326, 1327, 59 N.Y.S.3d 146 [2017] ; Hurrell–Harring v. State of New York, 112 A.D.3d 1217, 1218, 977 N.Y.S.2d 449 [2013] ).145 N.Y.S.3d 159 In......
  • Preferred Mut. Ins. Co. v. Dilorenzo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 14 May 2020
    ...justification for failing to submit the additional facts in his opposition to plaintiff's order to show cause (see Mula v. Mula, 151 A.D.3d 1326, 1327, 59 N.Y.S.3d 146 [2017] ; Premo v. Rosa, 93 A.D.3d 919, 921, 940 N.Y.S.2d 199 [2012]. In view of the foregoing, Supreme Court abused its dis......
  • Jason V. v. Katarina W., 527563
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 24 October 2019
    ...James H. Supplemental Needs Trusts, 172 A.D.3d 1570, 1574, 101 N.Y.S.3d 477 [2019] [citations omitted]; see CPLR 2221[e] ; Mula v. Mula, 151 A.D.3d 1326, 1327, 59 N.Y.S.3d 146 [2017] ). The husband opposed the wife's enforcement application by arguing, as is pertinent here, that it was ex p......
  • Reutzel v. Hunter Yes, Inc., 525922
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 1 November 2018
    ...issue, the law of the case is inapplicable, and Supreme Court properly denied the motion in limine as to this issue (see Mula v. Mula, 151 A.D.3d 1326, 1328, 59 N.Y.S.3d 146 [2017] ; Rosen v. Mosby, 148 A.D.3d 1228, 1233, 51 N.Y.S.3d 629 [2017], lv dismissed 30 N.Y.3d 103, 69 N.Y.S.3d 2357,......

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