Coccaro v. Coccaro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coccaro v. Coccaro

283 A.D. 969, 130 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5947

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 24, 1954·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Defendant appeals from a judgment directing him to execute and deliver to plaintiff a bargain and sale deed to real property which he had conveyed to her as part of a separation agreement. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. The conveyance of the real property in the separation agreement constituted an executed contract which was not undone, in the absence of intention so to do, by the termination of the separation agreement upon resumption of the conjugal relationship. (6 Williston on Contracts [rev. ed.], § 1742, p. 4932; 2 Sehouler on Marriage, Divorce, Separation and Domestic Relations [6th ed.], § 1312, p. 1561; Dudley V. Fifth Ave. Trust Co., 115 App. Div. 396, 398, affd, 188 N. Y. 565; Smith v. Terry, 38 App. Div. 394, affd. on opinion below 166 N. Y. 632; Hunt v. Johnson, 44 N. Y. 27.) Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, Mac-Crate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ. [See post, p. 1078.]

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

Defendant appeals from a judgment directing him to execute and deliver to plaintiff a bargain and sale deed to real property which he had conveyed to her as part of a separation agreement. Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs. The conveyance of the real property in the separation agreement constituted an executed contract which was not undone, in the absence of intention so to do, by the termination of the separation agreement upon resumption of the conjugal relationship. (6 Williston on Contracts [rev. ed.], § 1742, p. 4932; 2 Sehouler on Marriage, Divorce, Separation and Domestic Relations [6th ed.], § 1312, p. 1561; Dudley V. Fifth Ave. Trust Co., 115 App. Div. 396, 398, affd, 188 N. Y. 565; Smith v. Terry, 38 App. Div. 394, affd. on opinion below 166 N. Y. 632; Hunt v. Johnson, 44 N. Y. 27.) Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, Mac-Crate, Beldock and Murphy, JJ. [See post, p. 1078.]

Coccaro v. Coccaro, 283 A.D. 969, 130 N.Y.S.2d 609, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5947 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

283 A.D. 969 (Coccaro v. Coccaro) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related