Zephirin v. Pierre-Louis
| Decision Date | 06 July 2016 |
| Parties | Eldridge ZEPHIRIN, appellant, v. Franck PIERRE–LOUIS, respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
141 A.D.3d 517
35 N.Y.S.3d 233
2016 N.Y. Slip Op. 05366
Eldridge ZEPHIRIN, appellant,
v.
Franck PIERRE–LOUIS, respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
July 6, 2016.
F.J. Romano & Associates, P.C., Smithtown, NY (Frank J. Romano of counsel), for appellant.
Joseph A. Solow, Hauppauge, NY, for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., THOMAS A. DICKERSON, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SHERI S. ROMAN, JJ.
Appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Andrew A. Crecca, J.), dated December 13, 2013, and (2) an order of that court dated March 24, 2014. The order dated December 13, 2013, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was to appoint a receiver to sell the former marital residence. The order dated March 24, 2014, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiff's
motion which were for an award of child support for a child not previously identified in the parties' stipulation, to appoint a receiver to sell the defendant's interest in the former marital residence to her, and to appoint a receiver to sell certain real property owned by the parties in Haiti.
ORDERED that the order dated December 13, 2013, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated March 24, 2014, is modified, on the facts and in the exercise of discretion, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was to appoint a receiver to sell certain real property owned by the parties in Haiti, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
In this matrimonial action, the parties entered into a stipulation of settlement dated August 6, 2010, which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Autoone Ins. Co. v. E. Island Med. Care, P.C.
...of the first counterclaim, and for summary judgment on the complaint, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, 35 N.Y.S.3d 233 for a determination of those branches of the motion on the merits (see Allstate Ins. Co. v. Nalbandian, 89 A.D.3d at 649, 931 N.Y.S.2d 698 ;......
-
Mangra v. Mangra
...to be appointed receiver of the 103rd Avenue property to effectuate the transfer of title 97 N.Y.S.3d 157(see Zephirin v. Pierre–Louis, 141 A.D.3d 517, 518, 35 N.Y.S.3d 233 ). We also agree with the Supreme Court's determination to deny those branches of the defendant's motion which were pu......
-
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Cherubin
...granted the plaintiff's motion, inter alia, for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendant and denied the defendant's cross 141 A.D.3d 517 motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against her or, in 36 N.Y.S.3d 157 the alternative, to vacate her default in appearing ......
-
Saks v. Saks
...failed to cooperate in effectuating the sale in derogation of the parties’ stipulation of settlement (see Zephirin v. Pierre–Louis, 141 A.D.3d 517, 518, 35 N.Y.S.3d 233 ; Foley v. Gootenberg, 137 A.D.3d at 745, 26 N.Y.S.3d 336 ), and therefore, the Supreme Court providently exercised its di......