Coppola v. Coppola
Cases that cite this one
14 later published cases cite this decision.
- ROC Funding Group LLC v. C 3 Grading LLC (New York Supreme Court, Kings County 2024)
- Waldorf v. Maher (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2023)
- Martin Greenfield Clothiers, Ltd. v. Brooks Bros. Group, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Murphy v. United States Dredging Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Orange County Land Improvement, Inc. v. Foote (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Gorman v. Town of Huntington (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2007)
- Rivers v. Rivers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Savage v. Franco (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2006)
- Workers' Compensation Board v. Rizzi (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Simon v. Mehryari (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Zezula v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
- Williams v. City of White Plains (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- David B. v. Millar (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- ELRAC, Inc. v. White (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2002)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
—In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Maraño, J.), dated August 31, 2000, which granted the motion of the plaintiff wife to confirm a report of a Judicial Hearing Officer awarding her maintenance arrears and child support arrears in the principal sums of $24,000 and $2,125, respectively, and prejudgment interest thereon.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The defendant husband’s contention that the arrears for maintenance and child support should be excused based on the doctrines of waiver and estoppel is unsupported by the record. The Supreme Court correctly found that the defendant failed to show a voluntary relinquishment by the plaintiff wife of her entitlement to maintenance and child support (see, Matter of Dox v Tynon, 90 NY2d 166; Messina v Messina, 143 AD2d 735; cf., Matter of O’Connor v Curcio, 281 AD2d 100).
Moreover, the defendant’s claim that the Supreme Court erred in awarding prejudgment interest is not properly before this Court, as it was raised for the first time in a reply brief on appeal (see, Morgan v New York City Hous. Auth., 255 AD2d 565).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.