Opinion
No. 2023-00551 Index No. 202263/15
06-12-2024
Vira Rusachenko, respondent, v. Victor Lipkin, appellant.
Offit Kurman P.A., New York, NY (Bettina D. Hindin of counsel), for appellant. Russell Law Group, PLLC, Westbury, NY (Camille O. Russell of counsel), for respondent.
Offit Kurman P.A., New York, NY (Bettina D. Hindin of counsel), for appellant.
Russell Law Group, PLLC, Westbury, NY (Camille O. Russell of counsel), for respondent.
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J. FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY LARA J. GENOVESI CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered April 15, 2016, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph H. Lorintz, J.), entered November 7, 2022. The order denied the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of divorce or, in the alternative, certain portions thereof.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The parties were divorced by a judgment of divorce entered April 15, 2016, which recited that "all economic issues of equitable distribution of marital property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of counsel and experts' fees and expenses have been resolved by the parties." Thereafter, in July 2022, the defendant moved to vacate the judgment of divorce or, in the alternative, its provisions regarding equitable distribution, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff committed fraud. In an order entered November 7, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. The defendant appeals.
"The court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person with such notice as the court may direct," based upon the "fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party" (CPLR 5015[a][3]). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the part of the plaintiff sufficient to entitle him to vacatur of the judgment of divorce or, in the alternative, its provisions regarding equitable distribution (see O'Mahoney v O'Mahoney, 206 A.D.3d 819, 821; Dowlah v Dowlah, 89 A.D.3d 675, 676; Gaw v Gaw, 80 A.D.3d 557, 558).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit, need not be reached in light of our determination, or are not properly before this Court.
LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, GENOVESI and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.