| Dowlah v Dowlah |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07804 [89 AD3d 675] |
| November 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Caf Dowlah, Appellant, v Bilkis S. Dowlah, Defendant.Visnick McGovern Milizio, LLP, Nonparty Respondent. |
—[*1] Visnick McGovern Milizio, LLP, Lake Success, N.Y. (Avrohom Gefen of counsel), fornonparty respondent pro se.
In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered September23, 2009, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Jackman-Brown, J.), dated December 10, 2010, which denied his motion, in effect, to vacate amoney judgment of the same court entered May 24, 2010, which, upon the judgment of divorce,is in favor of the nonparty Visnick McGovern Milizio, LLP, and against him in the principal sumof $15,000, representing an award of an attorney's fee, and to vacate the income executionenforcing the money judgment.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
Pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a), a court may vacate an order or judgment on several differentgrounds, including the fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party. Here,the plaintiff failed to establish that the money judgment issued in favor of his former wife'sattorneys was procured through fraud or other misconduct (see Gaw v Gaw, 80 AD3d 557, 558 [2011]; Katz v Marra, 74 AD3d 888,890-891 [2010]; Gamba v Gamba, 253 AD2d 784, 785 [1998]), or that any of the otherstatutory grounds for vacatur set forth in CPLR 5015 (a) apply (see Alderman v Alderman, 78 AD3d621 [2010]). The plaintiff also failed to show that there was a basis to invoke the court'sinherent power to vacate the money judgment in the interest of substantial justice (seeWoodson v Mendon Leasing Corp., 100 NY2d 62, 68 [2003]; Galasso, Langione & Botter, LLP vLiotti, 81 AD3d 884, 885 [2011]; Alderman v Alderman, 78 AD3d at 622;Katz v Marra, 74 AD3d at 891). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied thatbranch of the plaintiff's motion which was, in effect, to vacate the money judgment.
Further, under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court properly exercised itsdiscretion in denying that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was, in effect, to vacate theincome execution enforcing the money judgment. The plaintiff failed to demonstrate thatprotective relief was warranted pursuant to CPLR 5240 or CPLR 5231 (i) (see generallyGuardian Loan Co. v Early, 47 NY2d 515 [1979]; see also Nord v Berman, 5 Misc3d 1002[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 51150[U] [2004]; cf. Midlantic Natl. Bank/North v Reif,732 F Supp 354 [1990]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Belen and Austin, JJ., concur.