Summer v. Summer
| Decision Date | 08 November 1996 |
| Citation | 233 A.D.2d 881,649 N.Y.S.2d 615 |
| Parties | Pepi S. SUMMER, n/k/a Pepi S. Schafler, Appellant, v. Donald L. SUMMER, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Beckerman and Beckerman by Gerald Beckerman, Rochester, for Appellant.
Frank A. Aloi by Donald Summer, Rochester, for Respondent.
Before LAWTON, J.P., and FALLON, CALLAHAN, BALIO and DAVIS, JJ.
Supreme Court erred in granting defendant's motion (1) to vacate a prior order requiring defendant to pay plaintiff temporary maintenance on the grounds that it was procured by the fraudulent concealment of a family trust that plaintiff had covertly created; (2) to award defendant a judgment against plaintiff; (3) to direct entry of said judgment; and (4) to award defendant counsel fees and disbursements in connection with the motion. The temporary support order was superseded by the judgment of divorce and it expressly terminated upon the entry of that judgment (see, McGovern v. Getz, 193 A.D.2d 655, 656, 598 N.Y.S.2d 9, lv dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 741, 602 N.Y.S.2d 591, 621 N.E.2d 1198; Catalano v. Catalano, 158 A.D.2d 570, 571, 551 N.Y.S.2d 539, mot to amend decision and order granted 176 A.D.2d 278, 574 N.Y.S.2d 520). Moreover, although CPLR 5015(a)(3) permits the vacatur of a final judgment on grounds of fraud or misconduct by a party, that statute does not apply where the moving party had knowledge of the fraud or misconduct before entry of the final judgment (see, McGovern v. Getz, supra, at 657, 598 N.Y.S.2d 9; see also, Elmore v. Elmore, 208 A.D.2d 1134, 1134-1135, 617 N.Y.S.2d 966).
In the present case, defendant acknowledges that he knew of plaintiff's concealment of the family trust before the commencement of the trial in the underlying matrimonial action. Additionally, the judgment of divorce reflects that the family trust was determined to be marital property subject to equitable distribution. Thus, defendant's present motion constitutes an "impermissible collateral attack" on the judgment of divorce (Lippman v. Lippman, 204 A.D.2d 1057, 612 N.Y.S.2d 532), and defendant is not entitled to the vacatur of the final judgment of divorce.
Order and judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Townsend v. County of Allegany
-
Christine Svenningsen, 33 Prospect Hill Rd., LLC v. Ultimate Prof'l Grounds Mgmt., Inc.
...which he acted as manager were not listed on Svenningsen's asset schedule, whetherintentionally or by mistake.3 See Summer v. Summer, 649 N.Y.S.2d 615, 616 (4th Dep't 1996) (husband who complained of assets that were concealed during a bankruptcy filing "acknowledge[d] that he knew of [wife......
-
Chase Lincoln First Bank, N.A. v. Dehaan
...as the evidence establishes that defendant had knowledge of the alleged fraud before entry of the final judgment ( see Summer v. Summer, 233 A.D.2d 881, 649 N.Y.S.2d 615, lv. dismissed 89 N.Y.2d 981, 656 N.Y.S.2d 739, 678 N.E.2d 1355) and, in any event, the cross motion was not made within ......
-
Degroat v. Degroat
...the prior pendente lite order, which is extinguished (see Batson v. Batson, 277 A.D.2d at 751, 716 N.Y.S.2d 137 ; Summer v. Summer, 233 A.D.2d 881, 881, 649 N.Y.S.2d 615 ; Flynn v. Flynn, 128 A.D.2d at 585, 512 N.Y.S.2d 847 ).The judgment of divorce was issued on January 29, 2010, and provi......