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.
Andrew NAGERL, Respondent, v. Melita NAGERL, Appellant.
Appeal from an amended order of the Supreme Court (Lebous, J.), entered February 28, 2007 in Tioga County, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment.
The parties were married in September 1999. Plaintiff commenced this action for divorce in March 2006 on the grounds of cruel and inhuman treatment and abandonment. Thereafter, he discontinued his abandonment cause of action and moved for summary judgment on the remaining ground of cruel and inhuman treatment. Although Supreme Court initially granted that motion, issuing a judgment of divorce, the court subsequently sua sponte vacated that judgment. The court thereafter issued an amended order again granting the motion, but directed that the judgment dissolving the marriage would not be entered until equitable distribution was resolved. Defendant appeals.
Domestic Relations Law § 236(B)(5)(a) states that “the court, in an action wherein all or part of the relief granted is divorce, ․ shall determine the respective rights of the parties in their separate or marital property, and shall provide for the disposition thereof in the final judgment.” Since the amended order appealed from herein is interlocutory and failed to render a final award of equitable distribution, that order “is nothing more than a decision stating the intention on the part of the court to divorce the parties in the future and, as such, is both nonbinding and nonfinal” (Sullivan v. Sullivan, 174 A.D.2d 862, 862, 571 N.Y.S.2d 154 [1991]; see Garcia v. Garcia, 178 A.D.2d 683, 683, 577 N.Y.S.2d 156 [1991] ). Accordingly, the subject appeal must be dismissed.1
ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, without costs.
FOOTNOTES
1. In doing so, we decline defendant's request that this Court consider the merits of her appeal by departing from its established case law and adopt the rationale of the Fourth Department in Zack v. Zack, 183 A.D.2d 382, 590 N.Y.S.2d 632 [1992].
CARDONA, P.J.
MERCURE, CREW III, CARPINELLO and LAHTINEN, JJ., concur.
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: December 20, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third 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)