Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: CHERYL D.U., Petitioner–Appellant, v. EHIGIE E.U., Respondent–Respondent.
Order, Family Court, Kings County (Jacqueline D. Williams, J.), entered on or about July 28, 2022, which denied petitioner's objections to an order, same court (Adele A. Harris, Support Magistrate), entered on or about June 27, 2022, dismissing her spousal support petition on the ground she failed to establish that she was legally married to respondent, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Family Court providently exercised its discretion in denying petitioner's objections to the Support Magistrate's dismissal of her petition (see generally Matter of Michael K. v. Pamela D.W., 159 A.D.3d 594, 594, 70 N.Y.S.3d 386 [1st Dept. 2018]). Family Court correctly found that none of the evidence submitted by petitioner conclusively established that she was legally married to respondent (see Family Court Act § 412).
Contrary to petitioner's contention, the May 12, 2009 order issued in a 2007 matrimonial proceeding does not support her claim that she and respondent are legally married. As petitioner acknowledges, she voluntarily discontinued the 2007 matrimonial proceeding before a final judgment was entered. Because the proceeding was discontinued, “it is as if it had never been”; everything done is annulled and all prior orders in the case are nullified (Matter of Irani v. City of New York, 227 A.D.3d 526, 527, 212 N.Y.S.3d 284 [1st Dept. 2024] [internal quotation marks omitted]). Moreover, because the May 12, 2009 order was issued on default, the issue purportedly determined in that order was not “actually litigated” and has no binding or preclusive effect (Kaufman v. Eli Lilly & Co., 65 N.Y.2d 449, 456–457, 492 N.Y.S.2d 584, 482 N.E.2d 63 [1985]).
We have considered petitioner's remaining arguments and find them unavailing.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Docket No: 4681
Decided: July 03, 2025
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)