In a significant ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York has affirmed a previous divorce judgment and denied an appeal from Daniel W. LaMarco against his ex-wife, Trisha M. LaMarco. The decision, made on September 23, 2026, impacts the ongoing legal battles between the couple, particularly regarding financial obligations stemming from their divorce.

The court's ruling comes after a lengthy legal dispute that began when Trisha LaMarco filed for divorce in 2014. The case highlights the complexities involved in matrimonial law, especially concerning the enforcement of divorce judgments and the awarding of attorney fees.

Background

Trisha and Daniel LaMarco were married in 1993. Their relationship deteriorated over the years, leading Trisha to file for divorce in 2014. Daniel did not appear at a court hearing in December 2018, which resulted in a default judgment of divorce being entered on June 10, 2019. This judgment was served to him on July 9, 2019.

After nearly a year, Daniel attempted to challenge the divorce judgment by filing a motion on July 6, 2020, seeking to vacate it under New York's Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) 5015(a)(1). The court initially denied this motion without prejudice, allowing him to potentially refile. However, he did not successfully do so until September 2022, when he again sought to vacate the judgment, which was denied after a hearing on July 13, 2023.

The Ruling

On September 23, 2026, the Appellate Division upheld the lower court's decisions in a ruling that addressed multiple motions from Daniel LaMarco. The court denied his request to vacate the divorce judgment, stating, "A motion to vacate a judgment pursuant to CPLR 5015(a)(1) on the ground of excusable default must be made within one year after service upon the moving party of a copy of the judgment, with notice of its entry."

The court further emphasized that Daniel's motion was untimely since it was filed more than one year after he was served with the divorce judgment. The judges involved in this decision included Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, Linda Christopher, Lourdes M. Ventura, and Donna-Marie E. Golia.

Additionally, the court denied Daniel's motion to stay enforcement of two money judgments awarded to Trisha, which totaled $228,589 and $5,000, respectively. The court also granted Trisha's cross-motion for attorney's fees, awarding her $17,500. The ruling stated, "The decision to award an attorney's fee in a matrimonial action lies, in the first instance, in the discretion of the trial court and then in the Appellate Division whose discretionary authority is as broad as that of the trial court."

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for Daniel LaMarco, who now faces the enforcement of the financial judgments against him. It underscores the importance of timely responses in legal proceedings, especially in divorce cases where defaults can lead to unfavorable outcomes. The court's decision also reinforces the discretion of trial courts in awarding attorney's fees, taking into account the financial circumstances of both parties and the overall context of the case.

As a result, this case may serve as a precedent for future matrimonial disputes, particularly regarding the enforcement of divorce judgments and the criteria for awarding attorney's fees. It illustrates how courts handle motions to vacate judgments and the necessity for defendants to provide reasonable excuses for any delays in their legal actions.

What's Next

Following this ruling, it remains unclear if Daniel LaMarco will pursue further legal options, such as appealing to a higher court. There are no indications of any related cases pending at this time. The outcome of this case may influence future divorce proceedings within New York's judicial system.