Kenneth Bengard v Theresa Bengard

Bengard v Bengard 2006 NY Slip Op 04977 [30 AD3d 552] Decided on June 20, 2006 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on June 20, 2006
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
FRED T. SANTUCCI
REINALDO E. RIVERA
STEVEN W. FISHER, JJ.
2005-00443 DECISION & ORDER

[*1]Kenneth Bengard, appellant,

v

Theresa Bengard, a/k/a Theresa Whalen, respondent; Philip J. Kaplan, nonparty-respondent. (Index No. 6035/99)




Kenneth Bengard, Staten Island, N.Y., appellant pro se.
Theresa Bengard, a/k/a Theresa Whalen, respondent pro se (no
brief filed).
Philip J. Kaplan, Staten Island, N.Y., nonparty-respondent pro
se.

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment dated October 14, 2004, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Panepinto, J.), dated November 23, 2004, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate so much of the judgment of divorce as, in effect, "released" the defendant's attorney "from any and all claims arising from" his distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the former marital residence.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the nonparty-respondent.

The plaintiff failed to establish that some basis existed for vacating the provision of the judgment of divorce which, in effect, "released" the defendant's attorney "from any and all claims arising from" his distribution of the proceeds from the sale of the former marital residence (see CPLR 5015[a][3]; Woodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68). Accordingly, the Supreme Court correctly denied his motion, in effect, to vacate that provision. [*2]
FLORIO, J.P., SANTUCCI, RIVERA and FISHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

James Edward Pelzer

Clerk of the Court