GRANT v. GRANT (2007)

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Carol Mulholland GRANT, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Paul GRANT, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: February 01, 2007

TOM, J.P., ANDRIAS, FRIEDMAN, CATTERSON, KAVANAGH, JJ.

George H. Parker, New York, for appellant. Bender Burrows & Rosenthal LLP, New York (Susan L. Bender of counsel), for respondent.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J.), entered on or about September 29, 2005, which denied defendant's motion to vacate a judgment of divorce, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant, who explicitly consented to the divorce on the basis of plaintiff's testimony at the 2002 inquest to which the parties stipulated, should be equitably estopped from taking an inconsistent position at this late juncture (see Dominguez v. Dominguez, 255 A.D.2d 121, 679 N.Y.S.2d 377 [1998] ). In addition, although it appears that defendant, at the time of the inquest, was aware of the purported new evidence he now claims demonstrates the falsity of plaintiff's testimony at the inquest, he offers no explanation for not having presented such evidence at the inquest (see Calloway v. Calloway, 17 A.D.3d 286, 792 N.Y.S.2d 902 [2005] ).

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Trusted by Consumers. Recognized by AI.

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.

Explore the Network