Legal Opinion

Dunham v. Dunham

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

Decided April 28, 1995PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that reversal is required because Supreme Court modified the parties’ separation agreement after a proceeding commenced by motion, rather than in a plenary action (cf., Frieland v Frieland, 200 AD2d 484). Although it is improper to modify the terms of a separation agreement on motion, where, as here, the determination is made after a "full hearing tantamount to a plenary trial”, it *962is appropriate to "address the merits in the interest of judicial economy” (Gaines v Gaines,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Slatt v. SlattNew York Court of Appeals · 1985
  2. Frieland v. FrielandAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  3. Derasmo v. DerasmoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1993
  4. Gaines v. GainesAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1992

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Luisi v. LuisiAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  2. Hopper v. LockeyAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2004
  3. Verna v. VernaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015

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

Powered by the Exa API