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.
Joan E. EVANS, respondent-appellant, v. Bret EVANS, appellant-respondent.
In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Whelan, J.), both dated November 3, 2003, which denied, as academic, his motions, inter alia, for the return of attorneys' fees paid by him to his former attorneys, from an order of the same court, also dated November 3, 2003, which denied, as academic, his motion, inter alia, for the return of attorney's fees paid by him to the plaintiff's attorney, from an order of the same court, also dated November 3, 2003, which directed that a prior adjudication of contempt be purged upon his payment of $20,790.90, from an order of the same court, also dated November 3, 2003, which denied his motion for the return of law guardian fees he paid, and from stated portions of an order of the same court, also dated November 3, 2003, which, inter alia, denied that branch of his motion which was to impose a sanction against the plaintiff's attorney, and the plaintiff cross-appeals from the latter order.
ORDERED that the appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,
ORDERED that the orders are affirmed insofar as appealed from by the defendant; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not lack jurisdiction to direct him to pay $20,790.90 to purge his contempt of certain prior orders and to direct the issuance of a money judgment for arrears incurred thereunder, where after the contempt finding was made and after the subject payments were made by him, this action was dismissed pursuant to CPLR 3012 for failure to serve a complaint (see Domestic Relations Law § 244; Burns v. Burns, 289 A.D.2d 358, 734 N.Y.S.2d 616; Walis v. Walis, 192 A.D.2d 598, 596 N.Y.S.2d 167; Sass v. Sass, 129 A.D.2d 622, 514 N.Y.S.2d 257; Faragasso v. Faragasso, 17 Misc.2d 360, 181 N.Y.S.2d 354).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
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.
Decided: October 03, 2005
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)