Preview:

[*1]


Decided on September 29, 2006
Supreme Court, New York County

350109/98
Laura Visitacion-Lewis, J.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By underlying order to show cause dated May 25, 2004 (Motion Seq. No. 3), transferred to Part 26 on January 10, 2005, defendant former husband seeks, inter alia, an order to vacate and terminate, and/or downwardly modify, his obligation to pay spousal maintenance under the parties' open court Property Settlement Agreement ("Agreement") which, by reference to their written Schedule of Settlement, was incorporated, but not merged, into the Dual Final Judgment of Divorce filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey on October 15, 1991 ("Judgment of Divorce"). As relevant hereto, the Agreement originally obligated defendant to, inter alia, pay lifetime maintenance to plaintiff former wife in the sum of $60,000 per year, at the rate of $5,000 per month.
Plaintiff files a cross-motion seeking various forms of relief, some of which was previously granted by the transferring court, including the appointment of a neutral mental health forensic who evaluated defendant's claimed disability and submitted a report on March 28, 2005, and a neutral business appraiser who, after experiencing months of delay in obtaining necessary discovery, submitted a report on April 4, 2006, assessing defendant's business interests in, and income and benefits derived from, K.G. of New York, Inc. ("K.G., Inc.").
Following the parties' failed attempts at settlement, plaintiff filed the instant application (Motion Seq. No. 4) on July 17, 2006, seeking dismissal of defendant's motion on the ground of failure to state a cause of action (CPLR 3211[a][7]) or, alternatively, summary judgment (CPLR 3212[a]), and attorney and expert fees. Defendant filed in opposition and cross-moved for financial discovery from plaintiff, and for dismissal of plaintiff's motion as procedurally defective or, alternatively, on the merits.
BACKGROUND
On May 5, 1998, plaintiff brought an enforcement action (Motion Seq. No. 1), seeking maintenance arrears. Noting that there was "little dispute" that defendant owed plaintiff maintenance arrears in excess of $200,000 at that time, Justice Eileen Bransten referred the issues of the exact sum and whether interest should be awarded pursuant to DRL

Download 2006_51922.pdf

New York Law