Greco v. Greco ( 2023 )

Greco v Greco (2023 NY Slip Op 01666)

Greco v Greco

2023 NY Slip Op 01666

Decided on March 29, 2023

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 March 29, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2020-05274
(Index No. 201553/10)

[*1]Robert Greco, respondent,

v

Susan Greco, appellant.

Susan Greco, Oyster Bay, NY, appellant pro se.

Robert Greco, Windermere, Florida, respondent pro se.

DECISION & ORDER

In a matrimonial action in which the parties were divorced by a judgment of divorce entered April 22, 2015, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Jeffrey A. Goodstein, J.), dated September 28, 2018. The order denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to modify a decision and order of this Court dated May 16, 2018, affirming a prior order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Geoffrey J. O'Connell, J.H.O), dated April 20, 2016, insofar as appealed from.

ORDERED that the order dated September 28, 2018, is affirmed, with costs.

The parties were divorced by a judgment of divorce entered April 22, 2015. In August 2018, the defendant moved in the Supreme Court, among other things, to modify a decision and order of this Court, dated May 16, 2018 (hereinafter the May 2018 order). The May 2018 order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, a prior order of the Supreme Court, dated April 20, 2016 (hereinafter the April 2016 order), which, inter alia, directed the plaintiff to pay certain counsel fees incurred by the defendant directly to the defendant's counsel (see Greco v Greco, 161 AD3d 955). By order dated September 28, 2018, the Supreme Court denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to modify the May 2018 order so as to direct the plaintiff to pay the counsel fees directly to the defendant on the ground that it lacks authority to modify an order of the Appellate Division. The defendant appeals.

The Supreme Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was to modify the May 2018 order. "'Trial courts are without authority to vacate or modify orders of the Appellate Division'" (Wiener v Wiener, 10 AD3d 362, 363, quoting Maracina v Schirrmeister, 152 AD2d 502, 502-503; see Matter of Branciforte v Spanish Naturopath Socy., 217 AD2d 619, 619-620).

DUFFY, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court