Calabro v. Calabro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Calabro v. Calabro

133 A.D.2d 604, 519 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51641

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

DecidedOctober 5, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 133 A.D.2d 604 (Calabro v. Calabro) 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

Calabro v. Calabro, 133 A.D.2d 604, 519 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Willen, J.), dated March 24, 1987, which granted the motion of the. plaintiff wife to vacate an untimely jury demand.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision of whether or not to relieve the defendant husband of his waiver of the right to a jury trial rested within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and we are not prepared, under the circumstances here, to say that the court improvidently exercised its discretion (see, CPLR 4102 [e]; Gonzalez v Concourse Plaza Syndicates, 41 NY2d 414). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Willen, J.), dated March 24, 1987, which granted the motion of the. plaintiff wife to vacate an untimely jury demand.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The decision of whether or not to relieve the defendant husband of his waiver of the right to a jury trial rested within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, and we are not prepared, under the circumstances here, to say that the court improvidently exercised its discretion (see, CPLR 4102 [e]; Gonzalez v Concourse Plaza Syndicates, 41 NY2d 414). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Brown and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 604, 519 N.Y.S.2d 633, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/calabro-v-calabro-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack