Bohlman v. Bohlman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bohlman v. Bohlman

71 A.D.2d 648, 418 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12872

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 23, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 648 (Bohlman v. Bohlman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bohlman v. Bohlman, 71 A.D.2d 648, 418 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12872 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 12, 1978, which, inter alia, (1) granted defendant’s motion to permanently prohibit plaintiff from bringing "any further frivolous proceedings” against defendant for alleged claims dating from the date of the divorce judgment, and (2) awarded defendant costs in the sum of $20. Order modified, on the law, by deleting the first and third decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision denying the defendant’s motion. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Since no one is entitled to bring "frivolous proceedings” an order that purports to preclude such proceedings is superfluous. From another perspective, an order that enjoins recourse to the courts is entirely too broad, even in the circumstances pertaining here. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In a matrimonial action in which the plaintiff wife was granted a divorce, she appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered July 12, 1978, which, inter alia, (1) granted defendant’s motion to permanently prohibit plaintiff from bringing "any further frivolous proceedings” against defendant for alleged claims dating from the date of the divorce judgment, and (2) awarded defendant costs in the sum of $20. Order modified, on the law, by deleting the first and third decretal paragraphs thereof and substituting therefor a provision denying the defendant’s motion. As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. Since no one is entitled to bring "frivolous proceedings” an order that purports to preclude such proceedings is superfluous. From another perspective, an order that enjoins recourse to the courts is entirely too broad, even in the circumstances pertaining here. Lazer, J. P., Rabin, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 648, 418 N.Y.S.2d 562, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12872, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bohlman-v-bohlman-nyappdiv-1979.