Haughey v Haughey

2007 NY Slip Op 09360 [45 AD3d 804]

November 27, 2007

Appellate Division, Second Department

As corrected through Wednesday, January 16, 2008

Eileen C. Haughey, Respondent, v Patrick J. Haughey,Appellant.

—[*1]Patrick Haughey, Amityville, N.Y., appellant pro se.

John M. Zenir, Mineola, N.Y., for respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals, as limited by his brief, from(1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), dated November 21,2006, as granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, and (2) an order of the same courtdated January 19, 2007, which denied his motion, denominated as one for leave to renew andreargue, but which was, in actuality, one for leave to reargue.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated January 19, 2007, is dismissed, without costs ordisbursements, as no appeal lies from an order denying reargument (see Berktas v McMillian, 40 AD3d563 [2007]); and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated November 21, 2006, is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and itis further,

Ordered that one bill of costs is awarded to the plaintiff.

The Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on hercause of action for a conversion divorce (see Domestic Relations Law § 170 [6];Christian v Christian, 42 NY2d 63, 72 [1977]). The defendant failed to raise a triableissue of fact with respect to the propriety and legality of the parties' separation agreement (seeRosen v Goldberg, 28 AD2d 1051 [1967], affd 23 NY2d 791 [1968]; Akgul vAkgul, 175 AD2d 194, 195 [1991]). Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Florio and Balkin, JJ., concur.