Raji v. Raji

• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
• Writing for the Court: ROSENBERGER
• Citation: Raji v. Raji, 639 N.Y.S.2d 923, 225 A.D.2d 472 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Decision Date: 26 March 1996
• Parties: Marilyn RAJI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Seyed Morris RAJI, Defendant-Appellant.

Page 923

639 N.Y.S.2d 923

225 A.D.2d 472

Marilyn RAJI, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Seyed Morris RAJI, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division First Department.

March 26, 1996.

Stephen Posner, Angela E. Scarlato, for plaintiff-respondent.

Joseph D. Danas, for defendant-appellant.

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (David Saxe, J.), entered November 16, 1994 and January 20, 1995, which, inter alia, deemed defendant to be in default in proceeding on the equitable distribution trial of this matter, precluded him from offering any testimony or evidence at the inquest, and appointed plaintiff receiver of the marital residence and marital property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Based upon a " 'balanced consideration of all relevant factors' " (Cuevas v. Cuevas, 110 A.D.2d 873, 877, 488 N.Y.S.2d 725), including the case history and defendant's actions at the two days of the hearing, the referee properly exercised her discretion in refusing defendant an adjournment to obtain counsel (see, Treppeda v. Treppeda, 212 A.D.2d 592, 622 N.Y.S.2d 749). Defendant was properly deemed in default for willful refusal to proceed and thereby forfeited his right to participate in the inquest on equitable distribution (Loewenstein v. Loewenstein, 201 A.D.2d 286, 607 N.Y.S.2d 279).

The court's appointment of plaintiff as receiver of the marital assets was supported by sufficient evidence in the record (CPLR 6401[a]; see, Nelson v. Nelson, 99 A.D.2d 917, 473 N.Y.S.2d 40); and was necessary to prevent dissipation of marital property (Hildenbiddle v. Hildenbiddle, 110 A.D.2d 819, 488 N.Y.S.2d 74).

We have considered defendan...