Title: Warner v Houghton

State: new-york

Issuer: New York Appellate Court

Document:

Warner v Houghton


2008 NY Slip Op 05773 [10 NY3d 913]


June 25, 2008


Court of Appeals


Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.


As corrected through Wednesday, August 20, 2008



[*1]
Carissa Warner, Appellant,vRichard Houghton, Respondent.Decided June 25, 2008



Warner v Houghton, 43 AD3d 376, affirmed.



APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL


Law Office of Barbara Bevando Sobal, New York City (Barbara Bevando Sobal of counsel), for appellant.
Adam Richards LLC, New York City (Adam Richards of counsel), for respondent.

{**10 NY3d at 914} OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the affirmative.{**10 NY3d at 915} Contrary to plaintiff's contention, CPLR 5511 does not bar review of the equitable distribution components of a divorce judgment where, as here, defendant was improperly precluded from contesting the awards. Moreover, the Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion as a matter of law in vacating Supreme Court's preclusion order.
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones concur in memorandum.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed, etc.