Conway v. Conway

2025 NY Slip Op 04349 · Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department · July 25, 2025 · No. 474 CA 24-01763

Summary

This is a per curiam opinion from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, decided on July 25, 2025. The court reviewed an appeal from a lower court order that denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue in a postjudgment matrimonial proceeding. The appellate court unanimously dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, modified the lower court's order by denying the defendant's cross-motion for leave to reargue and her motion to vacate a Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and affirmed the order as modified without costs.

Court
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Writing for the Court
Curran, J.P.; Bannister; Smith; DelConte; Hannah
Jurisdiction
New York
Decision date
July 25, 2025
Docket number
474 CA 24-01763
Procedural posture
Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Ontario County entered February 7, 2024 denying plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue in a post‑judgment matrimonial proceeding.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Concepcion T. Conway v. Eugene C. Conway; Nicole Lunder
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

family lawappellate procedureappellate jurisdictionfinal judgment rule

Practice areas

family law

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the appellate division should dismiss the appeal challenging the trial court's denial of leave to reargue.
  2. Whether the appellate division should deny the respondent's motion for leave to reargue her cross‑motion and the cross‑motion to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order.

Holdings

  1. The appeal is unanimously dismissed as to the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue.
  2. The appellate division denied the respondent's motion for leave to reargue and denied the cross‑motion to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order, and affirmed the order without costs.

Factual background

The trial court entered an order in a post‑judgment matrimonial proceeding that denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue. The respondent filed a cross‑motion to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order and also sought leave to reargue.

Procedural history

The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to reargue. The appellant sought review of that denial; the respondent also moved to vacate the Qualified Domestic Relations Order. The appellate division considered both motions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…