From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Veraldo v. Veraldo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1989
151 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

June 19, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Bergerman, J.).


Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the amended judgment is reversed, as a matter of discretion, the order is vacated, and the motion is denied; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of the amended judgment (see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the amended judgment (CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

We find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting modification of the judgment of divorce 15 years after its entry (see, Rainbow v. Swisher, 72 N.Y.2d 106; MacDonald v. MacDonald, 73 A.D.2d 958; Goldman v. Goldman, 69 A.D.2d 758; Chanin v. Chanin, 59 A.D.2d 671). Bracken, J.P., Eiber, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Veraldo v. Veraldo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 19, 1989
151 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Veraldo v. Veraldo

Case Details

Full title:JUDITH A. VERALDO, Respondent, v. FRANK VERALDO, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 19, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 661 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
542 N.Y.S.2d 725

Citing Cases

McManus v. McManus

We find that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in permitting modification of the…