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.
Vira Rusachenko, respondent, v. Victor Lipkin, appellant.
Argued—February 5, 2024
DECISION & ORDER
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered April 15, 2016, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Joseph H. Lorintz, J.), entered November 7, 2022. The order denied the defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of divorce or, in the alternative, certain portions thereof.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The parties were divorced by a judgment of divorce entered April 15, 2016, which recited that “all economic issues of equitable distribution of marital property, the payment or waiver of spousal support, the payment of counsel and experts' fees and expenses have been resolved by the parties.” Thereafter, in July 2022, the defendant moved to vacate the judgment of divorce or, in the alternative, its provisions regarding equitable distribution, arguing, inter alia, that the plaintiff committed fraud. In an order entered November 7, 2022, the Supreme Court denied the defendant's motion. The defendant appeals.
“The court which rendered a judgment or order may relieve a party from it upon such terms as may be just, on motion of any interested person with such notice as the court may direct,” based upon the “fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party” (CPLR 5015[a][3] ). Contrary to the defendant's contentions, he failed to meet his burden of establishing the existence of fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct on the part of the plaintiff sufficient to entitle him to vacatur of the judgment of divorce or, in the alternative, its provisions regarding equitable distribution (see O'Mahoney v. O'Mahoney, 206 AD3d 819, 821; Dowlah v. Dowlah, 89 AD3d 675, 676; Gaw v. Gaw, 80 AD3d 557, 558).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit, need not be reached in light of our determination, or are not properly before this Court.
LASALLE, P.J., CONNOLLY, GENOVESI and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2023–00551
Decided: June 12, 2024
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)