From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wikso v. Wikso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Aug 10, 1990
164 A.D.2d 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

August 10, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, Leis, III, J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Green, Pine, Balio and Lowery, JJ.


Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: In this proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5241 to correct or vacate an income execution for support enforcement on the ground of a mistake of fact, respondent contends that the amount of the arrears specified in the income execution is in error. He contends that he owes no money because the separation agreement which required him to pay maintenance was abrogated by the reconciliation of the parties. Respondent claims that the trial court erred when it summarily denied his application without a hearing.

Respondent's claim is without merit. The Legislature did not intend that a mistake of fact include contentions involving legal questions (see, Mirabella v Mirabella, 131 Misc.2d 655). The issue of arrears is to be resolved on the basis of what the order of support directs and whether there has been compliance (see, Caldera v Caldera, 142 Misc.2d 434; Siegel, Practice Commentaries, McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 7B, 1990 Pocket Part, CPLR 5241, at 123).


Summaries of

Wikso v. Wikso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Aug 10, 1990
164 A.D.2d 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

Wikso v. Wikso

Case Details

Full title:LINDA J. WIKSO, Respondent, v. RONALD E. WIKSO, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Aug 10, 1990

Citations

164 A.D.2d 975 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
559 N.Y.S.2d 419

Citing Cases

M.M. v. T.M.

The New York courts suggest otherwise. Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Gomez, 221 AD2d 39 (1st Dept. 1996);…

M.M. v. T.M.

The New York courts suggest otherwise. Commissioner of Social Servs. v. Gomez, 221 A.D.2d 39, 645 N.Y.S.2d…