Legal Opinion

Raji v. Raji

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided March 26, 1996PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Based upon a " 'balanced consideration of all relevant factors’ ” (Cuevas v Cuevas, 110 AD2d 873, 877), including the case history and defendant’s actions at the two days of the hearing, the Referee properly exercised her discretion in refusing defendant an adjournment to obtain counsel (see, Treppeda v Treppeda, 212 AD2d 592). Defendant was properly deemed in default for willful refusal to proceed and thereby forfeited his right to participate in the inquest on equitable distribution (Loewenstein v Loewenstein, 201 AD2d 286).

The court’s appointment of plaintiff as receiver of the marital…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Cuevas v. CuevasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  2. Nelson v. NelsonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
  3. Hildenbiddle v. HildenbiddleAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1985
  4. Treppeda v. TreppedaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995
  5. Loewenstein v. LoewensteinAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. David K. v. Iris K.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API