Chalom v. Chalom

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chalom v. Chalom

70 A.D.2d 944, 417 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12564

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

DecidedJune 25, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.2d 944 (Chalom v. Chalom) 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

Chalom v. Chalom, 70 A.D.2d 944, 417 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinions

— In a matrimonial action in which the defendant had previously been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November T, 1978 which (1) granted the plaintiffs motion to annul the provision in the judgment of divorce requiring the payment of alimony, (2) terminated the alimony payments, and (3) failed to grant her cross motion, inter alia, for a judgment for arrears in alimony. Order reversed, on the facts, with costs, plaintiffs motion is denied and the matter is remanded to Special Term for a determination of the defendant’s cross motion. The plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was habitually living with another man, within the meaning of section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law and that she held [945]*945herself out as his wife (see Northrup v Northrup, 43 NY2d 566, 569). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer and Martuscello, 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 defendant had previously been granted a judgment of divorce, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated November T, 1978 which (1) granted the plaintiffs motion to annul the provision in the judgment of divorce requiring the payment of alimony, (2) terminated the alimony payments, and (3) failed to grant her cross motion, inter alia, for a judgment for arrears in alimony. Order reversed, on the facts, with costs, plaintiffs motion is denied and the matter is remanded to Special Term for a determination of the defendant’s cross motion. The plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant was habitually living with another man, within the meaning of section 248 of the Domestic Relations Law and that she held [945]*945herself out as his wife (see Northrup v Northrup, 43 NY2d 566, 569). Hopkins, J. P., Lazer and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.2d 944, 417 N.Y.S.2d 780, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chalom-v-chalom-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack