Legal Opinion · Dissent
Farkas v. Farkas
New York Court of Appeals
Decided October 23, 2008Published
1DissentPigott, J.
The majority concludes that “Rule 202.48 cannot deprive a party of a judgment where it has been improperly or unnecessarily invoked in the first place” (majority op at 310). While I agree with this principle, I believe that Supreme Court’s 2000 decision and order directing Arlene Farkas (the wife) to “settle . . . judgment” did, indeed, fall within the ambit of 22 NYCRR 202.48 (see Funk v Barry, 89 NY2d 364, 365 [1996]). Thus, even accepting as true the majority’s position that the 1996 judgment and 1999 amended judgment were not subject to Rule 202.48, the 2000 order in my view was,…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Brill v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 2004
- Funk v. BarryNew York Court of Appeals · 1996
- Russo v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
- Feldman v. New York City Transit AuthorityAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- Kikenborg v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2002