New York Motion Final Divorce Decree Reconciliation Lawyers Attorney

New York Motion Final Divorce Decree Reconciliation Lawyers Attorney

by

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah

John Peter, Plaintiff, against Catria Peter, Defendant.

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, QUEENS COUNTY

August 9, 2010, Decided

Facts:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B7QtRCGQmrc[/youtube]

The parties were married in the State of Rhode Island in 2005. There are no children of the marriage. During 2009, the husband filed for divorce on the grounds of abandonment, contending that the defendant wife left the marital home in Queens County, New York, and returned to Rhode Island. The undersigned signed a Judgment of Divorce on November 2, 2009, that was entered by the Clerk of the Court on December 16, 2009. The Court granted the divorce on the grounds of the wife’s physical abandonment of the plaintiff, pursuant to Domestic Relations law section 170(2). Plaintiff former husband and defendant former wife filed a motion to vacate a final decree of divorce solely on the grounds that they had allegedly reconciled or were in the process of attempting reconciliation. Although the notice of motion seeking a vacatur of the final judgment of divorce was undated, it was served by plaintiff’s counsel on June 10, 2010. The affidavits of the plaintiff and the defendant that were included in the motion were signed in late April, 2010. The motion was filed on June 18, 2010, and was argued before the undersigned on July 19, 2010. The parties thus waited many months after the signing and entry of the final decree of divorce before seeking the relief of vacatur and provide no explanation for the delay.

Issue:

Whether a court should vacate a final

decree of divorce solely

on the grounds that the parties have allegedly reconciled or are in the process of attempting reconciliation?

Discussion:

This court found, inter alia, that the parties’ claim of reconciliation did not appear genuine or fully mature. They stated that they were still not living together again and were trying to work out whether former wife would return to New York or whether the former husband would move to Rhode Island. In any event, the parties set in motion the machinery of a matrimonial action. They got what they wanted–an uncontested, final judgment of divorce. The parties apparently reconciled after the judgment was entered, so there was no mistake at time the judgment was entered. Therefore, CPLR 5015 was inapplicable. This court congratulated the parties on their professed reconciliation, but reminded them that its role ended when it issued the final decree of divorce. Their remedy was to make new vows and a fresh start by remarrying, in their discretion.

Conclusion:

This court hence denied the parties the motion to vacate a final decree of divorce solely on the grounds that they had allegedly reconciled or were in the process of attempting reconciliation.

Disclaimer:

These summaries are provided by the

SRIS Law Group

. They represent the firm s unofficial views of the Justices opinions. The original opinions should be consulted for their authoritative content

Atchuthan Sriskandarajah is a Virginia lawyer and owner of the SRIS Law Group. The SRIS Law Group has offices in Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts,

New York

, North Carolina & California. The firm handles criminal/traffic defense, family law, immigration & bankruptcy cases.

Article Source:

ArticleRich.com

Search for: