Carlson v. Carlson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carlson v. Carlson

4 A.D.2d 700, 164 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4950

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

DecidedJune 24, 1957

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.2d 700 (Carlson v. Carlson) 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

Carlson v. Carlson, 4 A.D.2d 700, 164 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4950 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action by a husband to annul a marriage for fraud, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint after trial. Respondent did not appear or otherwise move with respect to the complaint, did not appear on the trial, and did not appear or file a brief on this appeal. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and interlocutory judgment of annulment directed in favor of appellant, as prayed for in the complaint. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the proof was sufficient to establish that appellant was induced to marry respondent by reason of her false representation that she was pregnant by him (Gordon v. Gordon, 225 App. Div. 822). The testimony of appellant’s friend to the effect that he heard respondent’s premarital misrepresentation and also her postmarital admission of its falsity is sufficient. to meet the requirement of section 1143 of the Civil Practice Act with regard to “other satisfactory evidence of the facts” in addition to respondent’s admission (Caleca v. Caleca, 278 App. Div. 771; Ambler v. Ambler, 286 App. Div. 1024). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

In an action by a husband to annul a marriage for fraud, the appeal is from a judgment dismissing the complaint after trial. Respondent did not appear or otherwise move with respect to the complaint, did not appear on the trial, and did not appear or file a brief on this appeal. Judgment reversed on the law and the facts, without costs, and interlocutory judgment of annulment directed in favor of appellant, as prayed for in the complaint. Findings of fact insofar as they may be inconsistent herewith are reversed, and new findings are made as indicated herein. In our opinion, the proof was sufficient to establish that appellant was induced to marry respondent by reason of her false representation that she was pregnant by him (Gordon v. Gordon, 225 App. Div. 822). The testimony of appellant’s friend to the effect that he heard respondent’s premarital misrepresentation and also her postmarital admission of its falsity is sufficient. to meet the requirement of section 1143 of the Civil Practice Act with regard to “other satisfactory evidence of the facts” in addition to respondent’s admission (Caleca v. Caleca, 278 App. Div. 771; Ambler v. Ambler, 286 App. Div. 1024). Wenzel, Acting P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.2d 700, 164 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4950, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carlson-v-carlson-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack